Talk:Recruitment Process Outsourcing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sounds like an advertisment
This article currently sounds less like an established business term and more like a neologism to package new business. In fact it sounds like FUD written by BPO/outsourcing companies about why total RPO is better than partial...
I'm going to tag it advertising (and needs sourcing) and see if we can't improve it, otherwise later on propos it for deletion as "not significant". --Saganaki- 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] it is not an advertisement
I had nothing to do with this article but I am researching HR practices. RPO is a commerical term, first established by a company called Alexander Mann Solutions. However, it is now a widely accepted acronym among HR professionals and therefore deserves an explanation for any professional seeking a definition. This article does not contain any company names and cannot, therefore, be considered an advertisement. It is admirable of the last debator to ensure Wikipedia remains commerically pure but life and work are intertwined with a fast paced world where meaning is fluid and constantly shifting. Please, Wikipedia, do not flag this article as an advertisement. There are people who need to know this information, even if it is linked with the commercial world.
-
- In fact the last debator (or editor as we're called here) doesn't believe that wikipedia should remain commercially pure. Rather I think that wikipedia should be a quality source of information and, in my view and from a reading of wikipedia's policies, the article doesn't cut it, lacking sources, etc. The comment about the abscence of company names meaning the article is not an advertisement is rather disingenuous. "In this fast paced world" companies constantly invent new sales terms to push their products, viz IBM's move to distinguish Business Transformation Outsourcing from Business Process Outsourcing. Just because "meaning is fluid and constantly shifting" and "life and work are intertwined" (fancy!) doesn't mean a term necessarily deserves its own encyclopedia entry.Saganaki- 05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
