252:.Valid term. Think crowdsourcing- it was a newer word that became used by many people and is now common. Also see multisourcing & nearshoring Wiki entries for reference and validity. In reference to the brand comment above- there is no mention of a brand in the text, and furthermore, it doesn't even allude to a brand or a specific industry for that matter. The whole concept of the text is to explain why it is different that outsourcing per the first part of the comment- nothing to really distinguish from outsourcing. It is a term that is being used in business discussions and is becoming more commonplace- as it is a newer term that is primarily being spoken about, not a lot of Google entries will come up- the very purpose of creating the Knowledge (XXG) article is that people are hearing the term and are curious about it and want to know more about what it means... wasn't that why Knowledge (XXG) was created in the first place? And now a word/entry is being proposed for deletion because there aren't enough Google hits on it and its a new idea? Seems to go against the principle to me
260:). That policy states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge (XXG)." I see no assertion in this article that the term is in wide use, or really that it has any use outside of a small group of people. A Google search for "Mastersourcing" or "Mastersource" turns up literally 0 hits that are at all relevant to the topic outside of the wikipedia entry itself. This is an extremely strong sign that the term does not have wide use, let alone discussion in secondary sources. Even if the term is primarily spoken, certainly there would be at least some instances of it in print if it was in wide use? You are welcome to promote whatever terminology you want on your own website, but Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information: subjects must meet our
205:
A variation of the term outsourcing, Mastersourcing can be defined as the transfer of the development and production of highly-specialized, mission- and performance-critical, low-volume products and solutions to an external provider. The concept – a supplier that has reached a master level – evokes
268:. If you have citations to such coverage of the term "Mastersourcing", we'd all be happy to take a look at it and reconsider, but without any evidence of notability, this article is not suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) at this time.
149:
180:
Neologism. Term only has a few hundred hits on Google, none of them relevant except for this article. No assertion of notability and no third party reliable coverage. Author removed a PROD, so here we are...
110:
226:
143:
83:
78:
17:
87:
70:
164:
131:
294:
36:
264:
to be included. This generally means that the topic needs to be the subject of substantial coverage in third party
125:
293:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
256:
Note that this user is the author of the article. Your argument seems to ignore our policies about neologisms (
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
277:
241:
216:
190:
121:
52:
74:
171:
273:
186:
66:
58:
157:
237:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
213:
137:
257:
269:
182:
265:
199:. A neologism invented purely for promotional purposes: not really distinguishable from
203:
except to "evoke" a claim to "master" status, which makes our brand better than theirs:
261:
206:“master plumber” or similar: masterpiece, master’s degree, masterwork, and mastermind.
233:
49:
104:
209:
200:
287:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
100:
96:
92:
156:
170:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
297:). No further edits should be made to this page.
227:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
221:
225:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
214:killing the human spirit since 2003!
24:
1:
278:21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
53:14:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
242:19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
217:15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
191:21:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
314:
290:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
262:notability standards
44:The result was
244:
230:
305:
292:
266:reliable sources
231:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
34:
313:
312:
308:
307:
306:
304:
303:
302:
301:
295:deletion review
288:
210:Smerdis of Tlön
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
311:
309:
300:
299:
283:
282:
281:
280:
245:
219:
178:
177:
114:
67:Mastersourcing
61:
59:Mastersourcing
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
310:
298:
296:
291:
285:
284:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
228:
224:
220:
218:
215:
211:
207:
202:
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
289:
286:
251:
247:
222:
204:
196:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
201:outsourcing
144:free images
270:Zachlipton
183:Zachlipton
234:• Gene93k
111:View log
150:WPÂ refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
258:WP:NEO
197:Delete
122:Google
88:delete
46:delete
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
274:talk
248:Keep
238:talk
223:Note
187:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
232:--
172:TWL
109:– (
276:)
250:.
240:)
229:.
212:-
208:-
189:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
272:(
236:(
185:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.