Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lean Startup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn. My main concern here is that the article seems impossible to write without sounding promotional. However, my concerns were mostly assuaged by Pietri's arguments. I hope to see that happen. Jujutacular T · C 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean Startup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Rationale was: Neologisms are not part of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Jujutacular T · C 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you clarify reasons why you consider 'Lean Startup' a Neologism ?. Leanguy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." I don't feel that this term has enough coverage in reliable sources to be covered by Wikipedia. Jujutacular T · C 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you clarify reasons why you consider 'Lean Startup' a Neologism ?. Leanguy (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, possibly copyright infringement. Every reference I can find on the web comes back to this one guy, Eric Ries, who coined the term. In fact I found this: "The Lean Startup is a trademark and service mark owned by Eric Ries."[1] This Wikipedia article doesn't mention that it is a trademarked phrase but makes it sound like a term of general use. I think that's a rather shaky situation from Wikipedia's point of view. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)MKeep I yield to William Pietri's expertise and sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't aware of trademark, Lean Startup is sure a big movement with meetup groups around the world formed to discuss lean startup methods. I wonder if this article here is shaky from Wikipedia's point of view. Cocacola Leanguy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because it points out the trademark. Check it out: the Wikipedia article on Coca-Cola says "Coke (a registered trademark of The Coca-Cola Company in the United States since March 27, 1944)." --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trademark isn't an issue. Jujutacular T · C 22:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Melanie, copyright infringement is a serious accusation. I tried searching on some of the text in the article, but couldn't find other copies of it. Do you have some evidence that this text has been taken from elsewhere? Like Leanguy and Jujutacular, I think there's no problem with us covering trademarked terms, so if you have reason to think otherwise, please let us know. William Pietri (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I wasn't saying that the text was taken from somewhere else. I was saying that the trademarked term isn't identified as a trademarked term in the article. If Wikipedia is OK with that, fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a fine fact to mention in the article, but the absence of some relevant fact in an article isn't a reason to delete; it's a reason to edit. William Pietri (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "shaky situation" Melanie refers to is the fact that the article makes it sound like a common industry-wide term, whereas the sources show it always associated with a single person. Jujutacular T · C 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For somebody unfamiliar with the field, that's a reasonable concern after a first glance at Google, but I think I've addressed that sufficiently below. If you still think otherwise, let me know what remaining concerns you have. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "shaky situation" Melanie refers to is the fact that the article makes it sound like a common industry-wide term, whereas the sources show it always associated with a single person. Jujutacular T · C 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a fine fact to mention in the article, but the absence of some relevant fact in an article isn't a reason to delete; it's a reason to edit. William Pietri (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I wasn't saying that the text was taken from somewhere else. I was saying that the trademarked term isn't identified as a trademarked term in the article. If Wikipedia is OK with that, fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't aware of trademark, Lean Startup is sure a big movement with meetup groups around the world formed to discuss lean startup methods. I wonder if this article here is shaky from Wikipedia's point of view. Cocacola Leanguy (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This isn't a neologism; it's just the name of something relatively new, which is different; the no neologisms rule isn't a rule against all things novel. Having recently submitted a conference proposal on this very topic, I believe it to be a real thing, a notable thing, and one clear enough to be documented. As evidence of that, consider that O'Reilly, the most prominent tech publisher, is offering a class on it. There are also articles in important industry-specific sources ReadWriteWeb and GigaOm, with a mention in TechCrunch. I also note at least 20 different Lean Startup meetups around the world. As to the question of trademarks, trademarking the name of a software process or a practice is not uncommon; e.g., Planning poker or Rational Unified Process, both registered trademarks. William Pietri (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, O'Reilly is offering a webcast on this topic - led by Eric Ries![2] Like I said, every reference I found on the web comes back to this one guy. To me that means it is not yet a generally used or accepted term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He did create the process and name it, so a lot of it will come back to him. But if you dig deeper, you'll see that plenty of other people are writing and talking about it, including Steve Blank, Dave McClure, Ash Maurya, Rich Collins, and Chris Cameron. I also note that Stanford thought the topic important enough to invite Eric Ries to talk about it, and Ries and Blank are currently teach a class at Berkeley's Haas School of Business on the topic. The term may not be generally used in the sense that people in Dubuque are talking about it on the street, but I don't think that's true for a lot of good articles. If the two top schools for high-tech entrepreneurship are teaching it to their students, it seems weird that it's not important enough for Wikipedia to cover it. William Pietri (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric Ries was not the first person to coin this term, but he is the "evangelist" for it. It was used long before in the boostrapped startup circles. For example, I own a domain name LeanStartups.com and wrote a blog about lean startups since November 18, 2008. Lean startups is also closely related to Lean services and Lean software development --Apsinkus (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He did create the process and name it, so a lot of it will come back to him. But if you dig deeper, you'll see that plenty of other people are writing and talking about it, including Steve Blank, Dave McClure, Ash Maurya, Rich Collins, and Chris Cameron. I also note that Stanford thought the topic important enough to invite Eric Ries to talk about it, and Ries and Blank are currently teach a class at Berkeley's Haas School of Business on the topic. The term may not be generally used in the sense that people in Dubuque are talking about it on the street, but I don't think that's true for a lot of good articles. If the two top schools for high-tech entrepreneurship are teaching it to their students, it seems weird that it's not important enough for Wikipedia to cover it. William Pietri (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not persuaded by the argument that if a term is "always" associated with a person it is unacceptable. For instance, the Black-Scholes [3] model is "always" associated with Fischer Black/Myron Scholes, yet that term is clearly acceptable. If the concern that it is a term only associated with one person, then please refer to the Lean Startup Circle [4] which has more than 2500 members that subscribe to the model and hold meetings across the globe. This group was neither founded nor maintained by Ries (although he is a periodic contributor.) Therefore, the question becomes: is 2500 active, verifiable practitioners sufficient? If not, what number is sufficient? Dbinetti (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, O'Reilly is offering a webcast on this topic - led by Eric Ries![2] Like I said, every reference I found on the web comes back to this one guy. To me that means it is not yet a generally used or accepted term. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2010 (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.