Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 1

International Project Management Association – Allow recreation, but I'm worried that unprotecting right away before the draft is "ready" or improved with the sources in this DRV will only lead to more spammy recreations of this oft-G4'ed title (I'm sure nobody actually wants this nor that.) So, whenever Peter Ellis is ready, this DRV's consensus is sufficient to justify the unprotection of the article and the publishing of Peter's draft. @Peter Ellis: when your draft is ready you can request unprotection to me, to any admin, or to WP:RFPU, just include a link to this consensus. – Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The IPMA is a well-respected, international association with over 60 member (country) associations world-wide. It has been established for over 50 years, has an open scheme of governance and control, is based in a country with a rich and strict legal system (Switzerland), had a notable previous name (INTERNET), holds annual world congresses, conducts an annual competition for a worlds-best-practice example of its stated art (project management), and offers a world-wide scheme of project management certification. - Peter Ellis - Talk 10:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I never got to see the page myself, but the rationale for deletion was still justified and this argument is just WP:ILIKEIT again. @DGG: @Randykitty: Pinging nominator and closer, respectively. ToThAc (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but allow rewrite. The AfD wasn't particularly useful, but the problem was the discussion, not the close per-se. Plenty of socking on the keep side, but the delete arguments weren't particularly insightful either. The real problem is there was no real analysis of sources. The version of the article that was deleted was so bad, it's not worth restoring. But, if somebody could write a new article from scratch with good sources, there's no reason a two year old AfD result should prevent them from doing so. Personally, I'm doubtful this organization is notable, but that's a question for AfD if it gets brought back there. I'd prefer to see this done as a new draft and sent through WP:AfC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm fine with recreating this in theory, but only if good sources can be found. The sources I've seen in the current sandbox draft, and the books presented by 86.17.222.157, below, do not in my opinion, meet WP:ORGDEPTH. So, userfy the deleted draft if desired, keep researching sources, and use WP:AfC to get some review/feedback when you think it's ready. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for User:Peter Ellis. Trust User:Peter Ellis's judgement to re-write or re-start, including to move it back to mainspace without going through AfC. That's a pretty horrible AfD. User:Peter Ellis and User:DGG may well have a useful conversation at their leisure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to userification. I nominated for deletion based primarily upon promotionalism; during the course of the afd the promotionalism was removed, but no 3rd party sources added. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFT - I did not see the original article. See my thus unbiased draft in my sandbox, here. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to your draft. The problem is, as written, this doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH. You've got some references, but they're mostly first-party, i.e. the IPMA, or it's member national organizations, writing about itself. What you need are reliable third-party sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ellis, I looked at your draft. You're putting in some work but have not yet identified two sources that demonstrate notability. I suggest that you start with these two sources, as starting with inappropriate sources for the foundation doesn't lead to a good article. I also wish that people would draft article in specific subpages to the topic, and not mix edits on multiple topics in the one history. Mixing the history makes it very hard to track the attribution history, especially when there is an old deleted and undeleted article in the story. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation if based on independent reliable sources such as ISBN 9781118000281, ISBN 9780191629389 and many other sources with significant coverage. Such sources should have been brought up in the original deletion discussion, but people who might have done so were probably put off by the blatant sockpuppetry there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for those ISBNs and found several matches for each. Can you be more specific? Book titles? A page number where we can find the passages about the IPMA which meet WP:ORGDEPTH? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you searched and found several matches, but the books I pointed to are The Wiley Guide to Project Organization and Project Management Competencies published by John Wiley & Sons, with mentions of this organisation on 23 pages including significant coverage on p. 316, and The Oxford Handbook of Project Management published by the Oxford University Press with mentions on 8 pages including significant coverage on p. 121. It really shouldn't have taken you more than a minute or two to find those for yourself. And they are only the first two notability-granting sources that I found quickly. There are loads more sources found by a book search and I haven't even looked for academic papers or news sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the ISBN link you supplied, and you get to here. Form that page, click on the Find this book on Google Books link, and you get to this search results page, which has four entries on it. It really does help to provide the most specific link you can; the less guesswork you leave for the reader, the better. Thank you for the clarification. BTW, you can get a link directly to the page by clicking on the "chain link" icon in Google Books, i.e this. That gets somebody to the exact passage. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect and allow recreation. International Project Management Association currently has full create protection. It should be unprotected to allow Peter Ellis to restore his draft (which is now at User:Peter Ellis/sandbox/International Project Management Association) to mainspace. Excluding the single-purpose accounts, the AfD had very low participation. Other than the nominator, only one other editor supported deletion. I recommend treating this as a soft deletion.
Here are some sources not discussed in the AfD:
1. Morris, Peter W. G.; Pinto, Jeffrey K., eds. (2010). The Wiley Guide to Project Organization and Project Management Competencies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 316. ISBN 1118000285. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  The International Project Management Association began as a discussion group comprising managers of international projects and has evolved into a network or federation comprising 30 national project management associations representing approximately 20,000 members, primarily in Europe but also in Africa and Asia (International Project Management Association, 2003). The International Project Management Association has developed its own standards and certification program (see my chapter earlier in the book), which maintains a central framework and quality control process but encourages development of conforming national programs by national association members. The International Project Management Association and member national associations promote their standards and certifications program in competition with those of others, primarily the Project Management Institute. The IPMA is hampered by its structure as a federation, by vested interests and priorities of its national association membership, and by lack of funds available for international and global development, which is a particular issue regarding the large number of member associations representing transitional economies who require subsidization of their membership and services.
2. Morris, Peter; Pinto, Jeffrey; Söderlund, Jonas, eds. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0191629383. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  Most national associations for project management, including the APM, are themselves members of an international umbrella body, the International Project Management Association (IPMA). The IPMA provides a forum for dialogue, knowledge-sharing, and coordination of the activities of its member associations, as well as providing an international framework for project management formation and accreditation. At the same time, acting for all members, the IPMA implicitly discourages international expansionism on the part of any member association, working on the principle that there should be one association to represent each nation. The sustainability of this position in an era of gloalization is open to question, as project managers move internationally within and between multinational firms, and routinely coordinate cross-border activity. One signifciant challenge to multinational visions of project management professionalism is PMI; PMI is not a member of IPMA and has a more aggressive globalization strategy, having established substantial chapters in over sixty-five countries to date (PMI 2009).
3. Bae, Hyun-jung; Lee, Hong-seok (2017-11-03). "IPMA Korea celebrates 8th anniversary of Incheon Bridge". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The article notes:
  The IPMA Research Conference is an international academic event seeking to bring together researchers, experts, scholars and practitioners in project management.
  Though a relatively small gathering of some 60 members, it is largely recognized for the close interaction between field practitioners and academic researchers.
  First held in Berlin in 2013, the event has so far been hosted in China, South Africa, Iceland and now for the first time in South Korea.
  ...
  Since its establishment in 1965, the IPMA has sought to introduce a value creating project management system in 68 countries across the world.
4. Vaskimo, Jouko (October 2016). "4th IPMA Research Conference in Reykjavik, Iceland" (PDF). PM World Journal. Vol. 5, no. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
5. Ingason, Helgi Thor; Schoper, Yvonne (2017). "Project Management and sustainability - review of the 4th IPMA Research Conference 2016". Project Management Research and Practice. University of Technology Sydney. doi:10.5130/pmrp.v4i0.5467. ISSN 2207-1415. Archived from the original on 2017-11-09. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The article is from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/PMRP/article/view/5467.
  The abstract notes:
  The 4th IPMA research conference was held on Project Management and Sustainability in Reykjavik, Iceland from September 14th - 16th 2016. In this article, we give a general outline of the structure of the conference, the main findings and what they mean for the project management community.
6. Richman, Larry (2002). Project Management Step-by-step. New York: American Management Association. p. 284. ISBN 0814426573. Retrieved 2017-11-09.
  The book notes:
  International Project Management Association, P.O. Box 30, Monmouth NP25 4YZ, United Kingdom, phone: +44 1594 531007, fax: +44 1594 531008, www.ipma.ch, [email protected]. IPMA is a nonprofit organization founded in 1965 that promotes project management internationally through its membership network of project management associations, individuals, and companies. It provides certifications, conferences, seminars, courses, research, and publications.
Cunard (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restore or relist Close was okay given the problematic discussion. But sources look like enough to at least relist and maybe even restore (I'd lean toward relist myself). Hobit (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.