Deletion of Talent stack

Comment: per , , via {{U|Rpclod}}, ''et al''. The |sources stink, to be politically incorrect. FWIW, I am a fan of Dilbert, and I actually think this term is useful, but it hasn't gained widespread use. In fact, most managers think one's strengths are all that matter (see ''Gallup (company)|StrengthsQuest''), while the HR department thinks that it takes only one weak link to bring the whole organization down (see ''Human_resource_management#Antecedent_theoretical_developments|Taylorism'') -- therefore we're not going to hire you. An |encyclopedia is not prescriptive; we are descriptive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:TOOSOON||WP:RS||WP:NOT)

Comment: The phrase was recently created and appears to be classic |neologism. While the phrase may be helpful, it is |too soon to know if it will become an accepted and |sustained part of lexicon.  Also, this article could be viewed as a ikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Wikipedia_is_not_a_usage_guide|usage guide.  Of perhaps greater concern, |non-authoritative blog references exist, suggesting potential |bombardment or  |link spam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:TOOSOON||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:W||WP:UGC||WP:BOMBARD||WP:LINKSPAM)

Comment: per ReidE96. Has valid usage, article is relatively good quality, doesn't fail the  test. No reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Politics is indeed a poor reason for deletion, and I'm confident such reasoning will be ignored by the closing admin, but politics is also a poor reason to keep. This article falls squarely under eologism, and the current sourcing is either primary or unreliable blogs. I searched around and couldn't find any commentary, not even brief mentions, from reliable secondary sources. A phrase that's just a few months old isn't ready for prime time. If it has staying power and picks up some actual coverage and analysis, it could be revisited later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I don't see how this passes .  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".  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: yes I would agree that it's the very textbook definition of , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: WP:N established in the sources,  established (and  hurdle cleared) per Inc article, which is a reliable source. However, this probably belongs at Wiktionary, since there's no way this article will ever amount to anything but a definition. Simply merging with Scott Adams wouldn't be appropriate since the term has taken on usage outside his coining of the phrase
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NEO)