Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Information Management

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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product Information Management[edit]

Contested prod. This is a non-notable neologism, an extended article about someone's newly minted TLA. (Quote: The term PIM has only just recently come into currency. . .) The text is promotional in tone and vague and abstract to the point of evasiveness:

PIM systems generally need to support multiple geographic locations, multi-lingual data, and maintenance and modification of product information within a centralized catalog to provide consistently accurate information to multiple channels in a cost-effecitve manner.

This would appear to be intended to lend further currency to some sort of management consultant business by boosting the exposure of its TLA slogan. One reference is given, apparently to a German language publication. History indicates that it has required policing for vendor spam. (e.g. this edit) Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one tread slightly when deleting things that have 400,000+ raw google hits [1]. This one seems to be a real technical term. A slew of new data management terms like Customer Relationship Management have arisen in the past few years as applications have drastically changed in nature from standalone to software-on-demand. These are not neologisms but rather accepted terms for new kinds of software or approaches to providing software. This is clearly not a promotional or vanity piece. A quick trip through the googlesphere reveals that companies as diverse as IBM[2] and Oracle[3] consider it a class of software. There is a patent on an aspect of it,[4] and here is an article on the subject[5]. I have chosen these articles to disprove the claim that it is one company's self-promotion efforts, not to prove notability. The technical report already cited by the article does that, but if more must be found one can start with the articles in Information Week at the top of the 1,800+ google news stories on this subject.[6]. Wikidemo (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hesitate to respond argumentatively; it always seems like filibustering. Because a "slew of new data management terms" have been invented and promoted, I am not certain that each of them is yet worthy of an article, even if they get some press - after all, folks are being paid to promote them, and in those sorts of cases I can justify taking a harder line.
More importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that we should have an article on this subject, is this article the one we should have? As I noted, I found the prose vague and abstract to the point of unintelligibility, as well as inappropriate in tone. (I found this article by Google searching for instances of the phrase "management solution" here; that seemed to be a fairly reliable indicator of spam, and calling a commercial product a "solution" is advertising style that's an inherent violation of WP:NPOV.) All that I could gather from the article is that it seemed to have to do with the automated updating of product information in catalogues. If this is truly a notable TLA, I could surely live with a stub about it; but I'd hesitate to try and redact such a stub out of the text we have now. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just some random paid-for press, this is 400,000 google hits for a real business term describing a distinct phenomenon, including vast numbers of substantive mentions in major reliable sources. The way to deal with weak articles is to improve them, not delete them. If there's enough material for a stub we should have a stub. However, it's not nearly that bad. A proper edit would probably reduce the article length by half. Wikidemo (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with WD. It seems to be noticed, and we should be there to help our readers understand the concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does the text we have there achieve that result? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question which is not relevant to an AfD. Poor quality is not a reason to delete a topic. I'm not an expert on the subject so I have no answer. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A market study is not a Reliable source for notability, nor is a patent . so we have oine article and a liot of uses in various company;s ads on the web. I doubt any of it supports the actual article. DGG (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by Smerdis of Tlön, since the article is about a non-notable neogolism or it is a advertorial that fails WP:SPAM, as the link to the list of consultants at the end of the article does not persuade me that this is a genuine buisness term. Without reliable secondary sources, I would have to view the motivation for the creation of article with a high level of suspicion. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's enough doubt here to keep this thing. But I'm not sure how it should be handled. There are a number of related articles that may be overlapping and could perhaps be merged into one useful article: Product Data Management, Document management system, and others within Category:Product management. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 19:47, 21 December 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.