Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project management vision (PMV)

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 delete. Sandstein 09:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Project management vision (PMV)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Project management vision (PMV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject appears to fail NCORP. Current sourcing is all directory listings and social media profiles, nothing approaching WP:CORPDEPTH; I searched, but couldn't find any RS giving significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The subject does not seem to fail NCORP. Current sources are not private directory listings. They are the offical records of respective Australian government authorities who accredit and certify vocational training institutes in the country. However, the LinkedIn profile of the CEO is provided for proof of this professional's existence and resume in the industry. User:Vegetagz6

I didn't not say that they were private directory listings, just that they were directory listings - which they are. The fact that they it's a government directory doesn't change that, it's not significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. A LinkedIn profile is neither independent nor reliable, and adds nothing to notability. There are still no reliable, independent secondary sources giving significant coverage - NCORP calls for multiple such sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I totally understand the point you are convey as an editor. However, vocational training institutes in Australia are not like universities to get significant news coverage . For example, please see [Wikipedia article]. It's also a similar vocational training center. If you go through its reference list, you can see only one citation is from a newspaper article (a website called Communitynews). All the remaining references are from the state government's websites itself (who also owns the institute). This would not discredit the aspect that the institute is one of the popular ones in the country - forming the backbone of Australia's vocational education infrastructure. That is the same case with PMV as well. For more third-party citations, the only ones possible are from regional or national conferences. In such a brochure from a recent conference, more details about PMV, and third party descriptions about its CEO may be found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetagz6 (talk • contribs) 14:01 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

One of the problems the project faces is the large number of existing articles with long-standing problems. It's therefore not considered a good argument to point to another article and say 'this is like that one' - see WP:OTHERSTUFF - we treat each case individually, on its own merits. If you can find sourcing to show that this company meets WP:NCORP guidelines, I'll change my view. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In my previous response, I have added some new references from technical conferences and proceedings. That's all I can provide. If you believe that even more third-party sources are required to depict the notability of "regionally popular" training institutions, then you shouldn't change your view.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetagz6 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Vegetagz6, I'm on mobile, so might be missing something, but I can't see where PMV is mentioned in either of those sources. If it's just a self-authored blurb about a conference they're attending though, I can't see how that would be independent or significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete While the sources provided are enough to verify the information provided, they do not meet the necessary depth required to prove notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:RS, clear WP:PROMO. This is not a TAFE and cannot be compared. It is a private company offering post-secondary training services - there are approximately 5,000 of these registered training organisations in Australia. Wikipedia is not WP:YELLOW.Goldsztajn (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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.