Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent stack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HackMagic (talk | contribs) at 05:10, 26 December 2016 (→Talent stack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talent stack

Talent stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - Not liking a person is not a reason to delete a wikipedia page
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Talent_stack&oldid=756690335"