Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent stack


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Out of the seven sources in, the Inc source is pretty good, and the CNN source looks promising though it's unclear from the discussion whether it should be considered sufficient. The other five sources are all blog-like posts. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Talent stack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google search shows that the only uses of this phrase are quoting Scott Adams. The phrase does not really appear to have passed into common usage and is not a notable neologism. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete yes I would agree that it's the very textbook definition of WP:NEO, so far. A Google Books search, tellingly, reveals nothing. It's been discussed on a few blog posts because the Dilbert creator used it to defend Donald Trump and in a way his own perspicacity in supporting Trump, I guess -- and the article is referenced with a couple of non-notable blogs now discussing this concept as a way to assess the true merits of Donald Trump. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We should not be celebrating Donald Trump or any of his supporters. Scott Adams may have helped create the term and get people using it, but this seems like a forced attempt to get pro-Trump propaganda onto Wikipedia and I cannot stand for it. I think this should be deleted or replaced with one that makes no positive mentions of Trump. 68.235.53.60 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — 68.235.53.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you're urging that this document be deleted because you don't like the politics of people related to it, that disqualifies your argument. An argument for deletion should be based on notability, not on bitterness about losing an election. 2601:602:9802:99B2:C486:C5D:6760:CF83 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, it seems like the only argument for deleting this is that a couple of motivated individuals don't like the political views of the person who invented the concept, so it should be deleted. Isn't that the definition of a severe bias? This is a term used by a number of different sites describing a fairly original concept, it's far from some one-offed neologism. If a few overly-zealous contributors don't like the political views of the man who invented the concept, that's a personal problem. They shouldn't be projecting their biases onto what is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia.148.74.131.25 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you could point to bona fide reliable sources that show how this doesn't fall afoul of WP:NEO in the most obvious way, I'd change my position. (A handful of non-notable personal blogs aren't going to do it though). Shawn in Montreal (talk)
 * Keep. We don't delete terms simply because a few politically motivated Wikipedians don't like the fact that someone used the term who also wasn't sufficiently hateful towards a Politician they do not like.  In addition, it clearly describes something that actually exists in the real world, and does so in the most plain language I have seen. KiTA (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) We don't catalogue phrases simply because, someone, somewhere "used the term." We require more than merely WP:ITEXISTS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to wikitory similar to things like Chewbacca defense or D'oh! exist. Unless a lot more content is added then keep. But since it is not too large moving it might be the best temp solution. --Cs california (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A Wiktionary entry has been created (by the same user, I suspect) and is also being challenged there. Equinox ◑ 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - politics is not a valid reason for deletion. Whilst usage definitely spikes around June 2016, there's usage at least as far back as 2012 on Google Trends. Would also support a move to wiktionary. ReidE96 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move to Wiktionary per ReidE96. Has valid usage, article is relatively good quality, doesn't fail the WP:NEO test. No reason to delete. Karunamon   Talk  02:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's look at WP:NEO for a sec. We've got cited usage by many secondary sources, including news media. Right there, boom, we're done, that policy hurdle was just passed. That being said, I think this would do better as a dictionary entry, since the opening paragraph is pretty much all there is, and this article will never be anything but a stub. Karunamon   Talk  01:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus on whether the term has been used widely enough, as documented in reliable sources, to pass the WP:NEO barrier. Opinions based on politics or like/dislike of persons related to the term are not useful and will be ignored.  Sandstein  11:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this passes WP:NEO. At least four of the sources are self published (and I'm not sure if The Hip Pocket is RS), and with only one (maybe two) reliable sources using the term, it seems to fall squarely in the category of "little or no usage in reliable sources".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torven (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into a related article - I think it's worth noting that the term is describing a similar concept to a technology/solution stack, just as an applicable term to a person's skillset. If 'talent stack' is too small for its own page, perhaps merge it with Solution stack. Personally I feel the difference is appreciable enough for it to stand on its own. Deltorva (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not liking a person is not a reason to delete a wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by HackMagic (talk • contribs) 05:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely non-notable, only coverage is blog posts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Politics is indeed a poor reason for deletion, and I'm confident such reasoning will be ignored by the closing admin, but politics is also a poor reason to keep. This article falls squarely under WP:Neologism, and the current sourcing is either primary or unreliable blogs. I searched around and couldn't find any commentary, not even brief mentions, from reliable secondary sources. A phrase that's just a few months old isn't ready for prime time. If it has staying power and picks up some actual coverage and analysis, it could be revisited later. —Torchiest talkedits 18:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The Inc. source is actually pretty good, but it's the only one I see that fits our source requirements. —Torchiest talkedits 19:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also older than the recent article from Scott Adams, and it goes into pretty great detail on application and explanation of what a talent stack is. The Inc source is probably the best one. Wikinium (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources may not ALL be absolutely flawless, but they are adequate for article retention. "Talent stack" is not a neologism, it's already being used enough to have its own article. Also, it appears that some of the people that want this deleted seem to want it deleted because it has to do with Donald Trump.Wikinium (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN has also covered this (screenshot). Wikinium (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking at the seven sources in this version: both the Medium ones don't qualify, as they're essentially self-published. The Danger and Play and Barrie Bramley ones are personal blogs. Based on its about page, The Hip Pocket doesn't look to have any editorial staff. As stated above, the Inc. source is the best one. The Adams blog post is primary, so can't establish notability, unless the suggestion is that he didn't coin the phrase, but he mentioned it previously way back in January. But in my experience it's tough to support a keep with only a single qualifying source. If there were more information on the CNN coverage, that might help. The only thing I could find was this, which is just a passing mention. —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 06:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are now seven references from different publishers as citations; just because the use of a word is relatively new (or just because it associated with a certain businessman) doesn't mean it cannot have an article. The WORD is not pro Trump (how can you even arrive at that conclusion?) Laurdecl talk 05:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of who created the term, the article is sourced well enough. People's bias should not be a valid reason for an AFD. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Sources are poor enough to disqualify this article. Re-create it if it becomes notable. DoggySoup (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It has already been established that at least one of these sources perfectly meets the requirements. More have been added since the nomination. 68.232.244.162 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Scott Adams. Neologism without sustained coverage. SST  flyer  13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The phrase was recently created and appears to be classic neologism. While the phrase may be helpful, it is too soon to know if it will become an accepted and sustained part of lexicon. Also, this article could be viewed as a usage guide.  Of perhaps greater concern, non-authoritative blog references exist, suggesting potential bombardment or  link spam.--Rpclod (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources aren't all good, but the one by Inc makes it notable enough to stay. Merging this into Scott Adams wouldn't make sense, because it's moved beyond him by now (plus he didn't really coin it). 69.24.168.193 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:TOOSOON, via, et al. The sources stink, to be politically incorrect. FWIW, I am a fan of Dilbert, and I actually think this term is useful, but it hasn't gained widespread use. In fact, most managers think one's strengths are all that matter (see StrengthsQuest), while the HR department thinks that it takes only one weak link to bring the whole organization down (see Taylorism) -- therefore we're not going to hire you. An encyclopedia is not prescriptive; we are descriptive. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep/Transwiki - WP:N established in the sources, WP:V established (and WP:NEO hurdle cleared) per Inc article, which is a reliable source. However, this probably belongs at Wiktionary, since there's no way this article will ever amount to anything but a definition. Simply merging with Scott Adams wouldn't be appropriate since the term has taken on usage outside his coining of the phrase. K arunamon <sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉  16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the Wiktionary entry for this term has been tagged for "requests for verification" (their version of an AfD?). Laurdecl talk 23:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.