- 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 delete. Closing as delete over soft delete given the in-depth source review which clearly demonstrates refbombing and a complete lack of independent reliable in-depth sourcing, and which no one but the author contested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- HRO Today (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)
Promotional article draftified for not having enough sources. Now it has a ton of irrelevant and poor-quality sources. Slashme (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
My source review here
| Source | Independent | Reliable | Significant coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Publication title". Advertising Age. June 12, 2006. | Possibly | Not really (marketing database) | No, database entry. |
| https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42627308 | Yes | Yes | No, database entry. |
| Deirdre K. Breakenridge (2008). PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. Pearson Education. ISBN 0132703971. | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| http://www.hrotoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HRO-Today-MediaKit_2019.v7-lowres.pdf | No (own website) | No (own website) | Yes |
| "PeopleScout Ranked as Total Workforce Solutions Leader in HRO Today". The New York Times. December 19, 2018. | Maybe | No (press release) | No (not about the company) |
| "PeopleScout appointment". NYTimes.com. November 19, 2018. | Maybe | No (press release) | No (not about the company) |
| "Hudson RPO Celebrates 10 Consecutive Years on HRO Today's Baker's Dozen List of Top Global RPO Providers". The New York Times. September 20, 2019. | Maybe | No (press release) | No (not about the company itself) |
| http://www.hrotoday.com/association/awards/ | No (own website) | No (own website) | Yes |
| "Three ISG Advisors Named 2018 Superstars by HRO Today". NYTimes.com. December 18, 2018. | Maybe | No (press release) | No (not about the company itself) |
| Joan E. Pynes (2008). Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass. | Yes | Yes | No, just uses it as a ref. |
| "Assistant Secretary Dann-Messier to Address Human Relations Executives Attending HRO Today Forum at National Harbor, Md". May 2, 2012. | Yes | Yes | No, just mentions that the ASG will be attending an event sponsored by the magazine. |
| "HRO Today Forum". | No | No | No (just an ad for an event. Dead link.) |
| "HRO Today Names Orange Tree Employment Screening One of Nation's Top Background Screening Firms". November 29, 2012. | Maybe | Maybe | Can't tell: dead link, not on archive.org. |
"HRO Today Forum (May 2019), Washington DC USA - Conference". The HRO Today Forum, organized by the SharedXpertise Media will take place ... |
No | No | No (just an ad for an event) |
| "What is Recruitment Process Outsourcing?". | Maybe | No (some company website) | Doesn't mention HRO today. |
"Business". The New York Times. September 13, 2019. vendor management systems, recruitment process outsourcing, predictive modeling, mid-revenue cycle solutions |
Maybe | Probably | Can't find it online, but seems not to be about the company, from context. |
| Tandy Gold (2016). Ethics in IT Outsourcing. p. 44. | Maybe | Maybe | Seems not to be about the company, from context. |
| "Post Tagged 'the bakers dozen'". | No, just some blog regurgitating HRO Today's content | No (just a blog) | Not really |
"Innovative Leadership in the RPO and MSP Industry". analyzes providers across three subcategories (service breadth, deal size, and quality) |
Maybe (dead link) | Probably not (commercial website) | Seems not to be about the company, from context. |
| Jay Whitehead (December 10, 2005). "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?". HRO Today. | No (HRO Today article) | No | Maybe |
| "HRO Today Launches First Annual Most Admired Employer Brand Awards for North America, Sponsored by PeopleScout". HR Vendor News. January 25, 2019. (Inaccurate title: actually called "Changing Legal Interpretations Cause Compliance Headaches for HR – New Research from HR.com") | Maybe - trade news site | No - trade news site | No (Doesn't mention HRO Today, probably incorrect link?) |
- Comment article was still in draft until pushed recently by the originating editor into mainspace after idling for almost the 6 months. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Author comment: The term "self-sourcing" may be this stub's best 'claim to fame' (article title: "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?"). Outsourcing is an important topic. Since the whole point would be their early use of this term, a citation of the article that made use of the term, by definition, would be a citation of the magazine.
The third entry in the table by Slashme (Thanks; your source review chart shows effort and care) is YES/YES/YES for a book citation. At this point, stub status is the "highest" possible outcome, if someone agrees. What's the article's value to Wikipedia, when Google finds them rather easily? It's that the companies nominated by them for awards get their proclamations recognized by notable publications, year after year, and attendance at their forums by high level officials are also given coverage.
In short: does this stub outdo Google's info about HRO Today? Maybe not much, but part of what Wikipedia does do well is provide a better picture than Google. That's what this (stub) does. Pi314m (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The GNG actually requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. The reason we need this is to make sure that when we write about something, we're able to create a summary based on information from multiple points of view. --Slashme (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (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.