Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talent Development

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 09:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Development

I prod'ed this based on what sounds like original research. An early version had little or no content, so someone afterwards tagged it with CSD. The author expanded the article a little more and removed the prod. They also removed the CSD, but at the moment, I can't find a classification for CSD. Yng varr 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn User:Uncle G has made fantastic progress on this article. See my comments below, under my earlier (and now struck) comment. Should have added this comment before I added that comment, but I'll keep the strike for audit trail purposes. Sorry for cluttering up your watchlist with two edits! Yng varr 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This reads like an essay, which is supported by the author having signed the article (removed). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to develop an article on a fairly new term "Talent Development" which is being discussed by the Human resource gurus all around. A separate multi billion industry is slowly developing around tis term. Being a nascent term, obviously it will sound like an essay. If this is not the correct way, let me know, how to do it? Empxtrack (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, try and make the entry more encyclopedic, which means remove personal bias and first-hand research. Find some notable sources for information about this term, including (but not limited to) articles written by the 'gurus' you mentioned. You need something on there that isn't just your opinion. Hope that helps. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you search google for "talent development" on microsoft site, you will find that the authors have used this term almost Two Thousand times. Doesn't it signifies that the term is getting popular and it do need to find a place at Wikipedia. Empxtrack (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the case, perhaps you can use the microsoft article as research. Cite it as a source. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't the place for cataloging new terminology. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As others have said, this article has been much-improved. I no longer see any reason to delete it. -- KingNewbs (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR, unencyclopedic tone, essay, how-to, fails WP:NOT, neologism. I wouldn't object if an actual encyclopedia article could be written here with verifiable citations to reliable sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been cleaned up significantly, and trimmed into a stub, but at least there is the beginnings of references. I'm just pointing this out for current and/or future participants; but no change in my own stance. Yng varr 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the fantastic work of User:Uncle G, this has developed significantly, so I'm posting a comment on speedy close and keep. Yng varr 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be made into a good article. This is the first time I've actually run into one of these that's non-sports related that I actually know something about (!) and it's not really a new term (hence not WP:NEO but is important in human capital management theory/application. This would be very useful if done well. The stub is a good way to start it. Ψν^Psi_nu 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.