Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Development and Management Association
- 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, it seems to me that this AFD was inappropriate, given the short time between DRV and AFD. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Product Development and Management Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Previous DRV for this article:
This is an article about a trade organisation, which is sourced from its journals, its press releases, its publications and not much else. The organisation has a journal, holds meetings, mas members, a chairman and officers. In which, of course, it is indistinguishable form any other organisation. It has 3,000 members. That is a very small association. The National Association of Women's Clubs in the UK has more than twice that, I know because my mum is an officer. I suspect WP:COI on the part of the three-times-creator and sole editor. Tone of the article is inappropriately promotional. Deletion review of my speedy was requested by user:Davolson who has fewer than 20 mainspace editos over a period of more than a year; the webmaster of PDMA is... Dave Olson. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article just passed a DRV with unanimous agreement to Overturn and Restore. To immediately nominate for deletion seems inappropriate. The description you give above is sufficiently generic to apply to the United Nations, which has even fewer members, but I doubt that article will be AfD'd anytime soon.-gadfium 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. It said it was not a valid speedy deletion (and I disagree there, since all versions are the work of one user who I suspect of WP:COI), but that is a long way short of saying it is a valid topic. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article does have a promotional tone and it lacks a criticism section, but it has the needed reliable sources to establish notability. Regarding a possible COI by the creator, User:Nzgabriel, I find convincing the statement he offered at User_talk:Nzgabriel#Netconcepts last February in response to my inquiry, that he is a high school student based in New Zealand. (He has edited an NZ high school article at Papanui High School). The closest he comes to COI is probably his comment I follow some local (Christchurch) companies including Netconcepts. Sometimes the things I write about get me noticed (I got to know a couple people at Netconcepts because of some of the writing I've done), which is cool when it happens but I'm not here just to network. The variety of articles he has worked on show he's not a single-purpose editor. The article sounds like Nzgabriel may have created it by rewriting some company-sourced material, but it's certainly capable of being improved. The Journal of Product Innovation Management that they publish, though it doesn't currently have a WP article, sounds respectable enough to deserve one. The PDMA is also responsible for some handbooks published by John Wiley, who are a mainstream publisher of technical books. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, have you found some independent sources, then? I did not see any, all seemed to derive from self-publication or press releases. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial or promotional coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. I'd be willing to reconsider, however, for now self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of mainly self-published books? How does that help, please? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No - a list which includes many books which are not self-published and write about this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I keep seeing Product Development and Management Association as publisher. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're seeing wrong, look closer. None of those first ten books, except the last on that first page, has any connection with PDMA whatsoever, but merely make an independent citation of PDMA as a valuable source of information. The last book on that first page is the PDMA-branded PDMA Toolbook 1 which, like the other PDMA titles (Handbook and Toolbooks), is in fact not self-published but is published by the large book publisher John Wiley & Sons. (PDMA licenses its name to the publisher, and helps recruit authors, but Wiley makes all of the final editorial and business decisions. They understand PDMA is a valuable "brand" in the field of new product development, which is why they want these books branded that way, to sell more books; PDMA in turn benefits by name exposure and some small share of the book's royalties.) Phil Bridger's very helpful list shows just how widely PDMA is independently cited by authors of books devoted to the profession of new product development, and validates the value of this 31-year-old organization to that profession. There are 115 books listed which refer to PDMA, and only 5 or 6 are PDMA-branded books. So enough about this "self-published" myth. (And while we're at it, let's also end the myth that PDMA is a "trade organisation". It's a professional non-profit 501(c)(3) business organization, and does no lobbying or advocacy for any industry or "trade", but is focused completely on education and research. It is, agreed, a business-focused organization, just like, for one example, the American Marketing Association is, or the American Medical Association for that matter, but should not be labeled with the perjorative of being merely a "trade association".) Davolson (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For the record, I believe that Davolson's recent edits of the PDMA article are improper due to his conflict of interest as the organization's webmaster. I suggest that he propose changes on the article's Talk page, and I will try to work with him to improve the article before the AfD closes, which may be later today. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, I have the removed the WP:COI additions, however as suggested this should be discussed on the articles talk page. In the future, avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors and always avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view and verifiability --Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how to improve the article, if I'm not permitted to improve it. It seems like a bit of a Catch-22, doesn't it? The article can and should be improved, but if no one involved with PDMA can improve it, and only people who know nothing about the organization can do so, then we have a bit of a conundrum, ISTM. There's no end of information on the PDMA web site about the organization's contributions, value, history, etc. etc. (e.g., www.pdma.org/about), but someone would need to get that up on the Wikipedia page, and I'm not allowed to. PDMA's books have been reviewed in many academic circles and are used in many academic programs around the world, but it will take time to compile that info, and then if I do it's a COI to post it. See why I'm a little confused? I appreciate and understand the COI policy, but don't understand how to get this page improved... hoping that you do allow it to stay up awhile while we try to improve it sufficiently to meet your standards. --Davolson (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, I have the removed the WP:COI additions, however as suggested this should be discussed on the articles talk page. In the future, avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors and always avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view and verifiability --Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For the record, I believe that Davolson's recent edits of the PDMA article are improper due to his conflict of interest as the organization's webmaster. I suggest that he propose changes on the article's Talk page, and I will try to work with him to improve the article before the AfD closes, which may be later today. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're seeing wrong, look closer. None of those first ten books, except the last on that first page, has any connection with PDMA whatsoever, but merely make an independent citation of PDMA as a valuable source of information. The last book on that first page is the PDMA-branded PDMA Toolbook 1 which, like the other PDMA titles (Handbook and Toolbooks), is in fact not self-published but is published by the large book publisher John Wiley & Sons. (PDMA licenses its name to the publisher, and helps recruit authors, but Wiley makes all of the final editorial and business decisions. They understand PDMA is a valuable "brand" in the field of new product development, which is why they want these books branded that way, to sell more books; PDMA in turn benefits by name exposure and some small share of the book's royalties.) Phil Bridger's very helpful list shows just how widely PDMA is independently cited by authors of books devoted to the profession of new product development, and validates the value of this 31-year-old organization to that profession. There are 115 books listed which refer to PDMA, and only 5 or 6 are PDMA-branded books. So enough about this "self-published" myth. (And while we're at it, let's also end the myth that PDMA is a "trade organisation". It's a professional non-profit 501(c)(3) business organization, and does no lobbying or advocacy for any industry or "trade", but is focused completely on education and research. It is, agreed, a business-focused organization, just like, for one example, the American Marketing Association is, or the American Medical Association for that matter, but should not be labeled with the perjorative of being merely a "trade association".) Davolson (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I keep seeing Product Development and Management Association as publisher. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No - a list which includes many books which are not self-published and write about this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of mainly self-published books? How does that help, please? Guy (Help!) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Self-published source isn't reliable at all.--NAHID 18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to additions of reliable sources such as Business Week, etc. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist query? Is it in order for an AfD participant to ask for a re-list for additional time? See this user talk thread as evidence that a company representative is willing to work with me on fixing up the article. Another five days should be plenty. If this request is not appropriate just delete my comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think there's any need to relist. Enough consensus has surely been achieved for a "keep" already. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there seems to be no consensus at this point, and a possible relist to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached seems quite valid.--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - I thought Davolson was linked to the organisation. I hate this kind of situation; the only people who appear to care are those who are associated with it. It's a very small association, around 3,000 members. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Product Development and Management Association for some work by Davolson and me on finding better references. Any help gladly accepted there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the existing article with a new version, per Talk and per this AfD discussion. The promotional tone has been greatly reduced, though I couldn't find reliable sources for everything as I had hoped. Further improvements are welcome. I suspect that better categories can be added, and the reference style can be cleaned up. Of course, new information that comes from reliable sources can be added. Should it be assigned to some WikiProject? Not sure whether this version is so small it should be marked as a stub. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Talk:Product Development and Management Association for some work by Davolson and me on finding better references. Any help gladly accepted there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning, please? EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote.--Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise. Here's my reasoning: If it is retained then more work can be done upon it to reach it to a better version than it currently is. I would like to work with other Wikipedians to make this better. Nzgabriel (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE. This is not an argument for deletion at all, it's a vote.--Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (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.