Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Management Body of Knowledge

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 keep -- Y not? 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Let's not get extreme. Following this logic, articles like ANSI C, UML, and even HTML would have to be deleted as well, just because we don't want to have ISO standards in Wikipedia. I hear what you are saying, but let's sort out a few things:

Style and content - it seems everyone is agree that the style and content should be changed.
Title - not too many people know this standard by its numbers, PMBOK is a much more popular name. I have not seen yet any PM courses without mentioning PMBOK (note, that this courses were not conducted by PMI).

I think the tag 'Article requires cleanup' would be much more appropriate than 'AfD'. With the 'AfD' tag I have very minimal motivation to touch this article. Others may feel the same. It just doesn't make sense to spend time and make any significant changes knowing that the article may get deleted. Basically, the article is locked in a way it is now. In order to cut this knot I think we need to do three steps:

Ask ourselves if PMBOK is significant enough to have an article in Wikipedia (without taking into account the style it is written now).
If so, remove the AfD tag and
Decide what this article should be like and work on improvement.

To me the coverage of the project management area would be weak without this article. Let's not judge significance of an article based solely on the style it is written. It may just need some improvement. Solarapex 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing in this discussion is that 7 wikipedias have an article on PMBOK with no intent to delete it, but some users on this Wikipedia think that this article should be deleted. Solarapex 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wikipedias? do you mean wikipedias in other languages or other wikis? - that's not an argument for keeping it as the criteria for articles varies significantly between wikis. --Fredrick day 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant that. Nonetheless, this fact says something. Moreover, I don't think the the criteria for articles varies significantly between English and German (2nd) and French (3rd). Solarapex 23:58, 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]

Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't cover a subject as broad as project management because "we are a general encyclopedia"? ➥the Epopt 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should cover it, and we do; we have the main article, into which this can be merged. I do say that we should not have a separate article about a handbook which provides no additional information, just listing the section headings which of course correspond to the main points about the subject. A reference in the main article would do. By your logic we expand every general reference in every article into a separate article of its own. DGG (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2007 (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.

-- Y not? 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]