Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People analytics

People analytics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"People analytics" seems to have been a business neologism that did not really catch on. A number of publications seem to have used this phrase but in a way that seems interchangable with other related, and more established buzzwords such as Behavioral analytics and Cohort analysis. The entire article seems to be a coatrack for the ideas of management journalist Ben Weber, who published a book called "People Analytics" in 2013. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, this is a twinkle bug, there are 2 of the same reports. I can't fix it, can someone who is more experienced help out? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My fault, first time I submitted the AFD Twinkle rejected the submission, so I did it again. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PR blurb and coatrack. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I don't see how it being a neologism is an issue. Whether or not it has caught on seems to be a matter of time scale and proximity to roles / groups that are called as such. Possibly this could be merged into the Workforce Analytics section of Workforce Planning. That being said, well-known organization actively call their team's People Analytics (e.g. Google, Walmart, Facebook, Biogen, etc. per a LinkedIn search) There have been 12 conferences in the last 12 months with the title "People Analytics". To be clear, People Analytics (by all of the before mentioned organizations and many others) is referring only to employees / workforce members of the organization. Both Cohort & Behavioral analytics focus on customers / end users. Agreed that the terminology is confusing from a distance; however, it is clearly differentiated in various publications. All this being said, the article needs A LOT of work and a lot more references... Mimercha (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as still questionable for solid notability and better improvements, article could certainly be better and we'll wait. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. an article could be written, but this is an advertisement for weber, just as claimed. Of the references, nos. 10 and 11 do not mention the phrase; some other refer to in only in passing, with attribution to Weber. Ithe intro to the book doesn't mention it either. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]