Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Management Body of Knowledge

Project Management Body of Knowledge

This text sounds like self-promotion or an attempt at marketing a product or concept on Wikipedia. Althena 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is one of the best references on the Project Management. I agree that the style of the article should be changed and the article itself should be extended, but the article should not be deleted. There is no self-promotion as this book is a collaborative work of many individuals. This book for project managers is like The Art of Computer Programming for programmers. Solarapex 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the deletion. Agree with changing the style. EyeMD ^T|C 03:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, pending a complete rewrite and more sources. Any knowledgeable volunteers? Adrian M. H. 21:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the deletion, is a must, for the Wikipedia. Agree also with style change and increase extension.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs better sources and I've cleaned it up a bit (incoherent doesn't really start to describe how the article current was). --Fredrick day 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article's not great, but the subject is clearly notable within the field of project management. Terraxos 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we make a policy decision to include individual articles on all the the tens of thousands of iso, IEEE, ASTM, SAE, and other standards. They are all published separately, they are all needed within their usually small niche, and articles about them will usually be unencyclopedic. This is a larger niche than many, but the content is just the table of contents of a book. If kept, the title should be changed to "standard (IEEE Std 1490-2003" to avoid the false impression that an article on project management body of knowledge as a general subject in addition to project management is justified. The contents, by the way, is strongly POV--the one external reference is a comprehensive attack on the usefulness of the standard.DGG 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — the PMBOK is one of the definitive references for project management, a foundational work that no serious encyclopedia covering the subject could be without ➥the Epopt, PMP 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we are a general encyclopedia, and the chapter titles simply recapitulate information from the main article. DGG (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]