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. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International Association of Project Managers[edit]
Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [1]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IAPM does not organise private trainings. Nobody paid me to write this article. Compared to PMI, every PM organisation has few members... Just to clarify. In my opinion, the article is justified. Although it is a relatively small organisation, it still has members worldwide (at least according to its own data) and several sub-organisations.[1][2] If the relevance of each article is determined by the large ones, we can also close wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the advertising part because I am biased. Just an info to the person processing the deletion, that seems to be important here: Ilumeo and his crew are related to IPMA’s German sub-organisation GPM. A PM organisations which has a grudge against the IAPM and accordingly against this article. Why do I say this? I am aware that my comments are biased in a certain way. For the others, it should also be known. GilbertPotter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)— GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
I am only biased by the idea of holding wikipedia free from self-promoting articles with insufficient external reception and from people who confuse an encyclopedia with Linkedin. Ilumeo (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Illumeo's arguments seem irrelevant to me. I have just deleted an irrelavent and inaccurate part from the article that Illumeo inserted there. It seems to me that he inserted it on purpose to support his otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. As far as I can see, the article is not advertising, but if the general consensus is that it is advertising, then the last part about "Special features of IAPM" can be shortened, and then it should be fine in my opinion.FreakyFridolin (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: While I agree that the article was not the best to be accepted (i.e. it includes mostly primary sources and no article links to it), I'd say that it still should be kept, as it has acceptable sourcing and is neutral in most parts. Luxtay theIInd (talke to mee) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It just about has enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, primary sources are not a valid evidence of the encyclopedic relevance of an organization. The secondary sources are mostly blog posts that definitely cannot be used as evidence of a high level of awareness. Overall, the external reception is not sufficient as it was mentioned here as well. If the majority of the article advertises certificates that can be purchased, I don't find that really neutral either. Ilumeo (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing in the article relies a lot on primary sources. The ones that are not are not reliable sources for establishing notability. The CIO article is probably the best of the lot and its just a list of certifications. Top 13? Why 13? Probably because they are all of the certifications. -- Whpq (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:1. Of course, the article uses many primary sources and comparatively few secondary sources. However, the secondary sources are all reputable, even if they are mainly in the project management field.2. Especially small organisations have few or no sources outside the field in which they are active and have, in my opinion, a right to be in Wikipedia. 3. I went back to look for mentions and came across some that i would (at least partially) include after the deletion discussion is finished. 3.1 The computer magazine Heise reports about IAPM as the first organisation in the agile field without recertification.Click3.2 Jacobs University Bremen has a new professor and calls him an expert because he is certified by the IAPM. Click3.3 BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg promotes the IAPM certificate.Click3.4 For doctoral students at the University of Stuttgart, the IAPM's project management methods are part of the course which "belongs to the interdisciplinary courses for teaching interdisciplinary key qualifications according to §5 Para. 4 No. 2 PromO 2016".Click 1Click 2Click 3Click 43.5 Postdocs of the Otto von Guericke Graduate Academy who are part of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg are trained by a trainer certified by the IAPM. This is also openly communicated by the university. Click3.6 The IAPM Indonesia Network has 3290 subscribers on Youtube and 1400-10000 views on each video. Click3.7 The IHK AKADEMIE TRAUNSTEIN (a state commissioned organisation for training and education) and the district of Traustein (Germany) advertise that a certificate can be obtained from the IAPM after their training.Click3.8 Indeeds articles about The IAPM ClickGilbertPotter (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remember: GilbertPotter is a WP:SPA, the creator of this page that is the subject of this XfD and therefore has no WP:NPOV. These sources are just another desperate attempt to ascribe more relevance to the article than it has. Much of the page that is the subject of this XfD also seems exaggerated in terms of marketing. E.g. there it says that "IAPM's methods were recognized by the Procurement Office of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior". That sounds reputable at first glance... However, there was no official letter of recognition or a certificate by the Ministry. Instead, IAPM once was mentioned at the edge of a single job add in 2018.[1] With the right marketing, it looks like more. Ilumeo (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ilumeo I have the feeling that you don't want to contribute anything productive. You make no effort to read anything in the article in question or to read the comments of others in this deletion discussion. On my page, I have clearly noted WP:COI, if you would bother, you would know that and not have to write it. This has already been pointed out by The Grid in this deletion discussion. If you think something is marketing, you are free to edit it (but please on a correct and researched basis, not like last time). By the way, your "source" is not the one I linked to - it's Click which links here Click. Under this link you will also find the PDF document with the invitation to tender. There you will also find the sentence (in German) "In the performance of the advisory service, the respective current and recognised standards and methods, in particular those of the federal government, are to be implemented. These include, among others: [...]IAPM (International Association of Project Managers)[...]" This is from the first invitation to tender, I will refrain from quoting the other two. Everything can be found under the sources.GilbertPotter (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your commitment in all honor, I understand it's about making money. A page in Wikipedia would lead to greater awareness and thus more sales. The goal is certainly that a lot of people acquire a certificate that would be legitimized by Wikipedia. However, the IAPM certificates are not yet well known to justify an encyclopedic relevance. Around 5,000 certificates have only been issued worldwide so far. If you go to an interview, the recruiters will certainly not know about these certificates. There are also numerous other providers of this very insignificant size. So where is the added value? I could create a nice-looking layout and then print it out as a certificate, that would be just as relevant. Ilumeo (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what you're trying to do all the time with these off-the-cuff assumptions. Apart from that, you're saying all the wrong things again. Do you want to emphasise that you have a personal vendetta here (5000 is just another wrong number)? I have already given other sources above, some of which report on the IAPM independently of the topic of project management, which in my opinion indicates relevance. Besides, this is not just about the certificates issued. There are just shy of 40,000 people in the IAPM network.GilbertPotter (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page that is the subject of this XfD has a strong focus on certificates. Therefore, this should also be addressed in the deletion discussion. You constantly assume things here about my background, whereas I only want to keep the quality in Wikipedia high. You have to be able to deal with critical voices without feeling personally attacked. To be precise, 5,572 certificates were issued, not 5,000 (you are right). But do these 572 additional certificates make the organization more relevant? No. I have also seen the information on 40,000 network members, but don't find it very meaningful. What is that supposed to be? Partly this includes the followers in social networks. Is that the sum of it then? If so, then it is no reliable data. E.g. if one person likes the IAPM on three social networks, that's still only one person, not three people. --Ilumeo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ilumeo, that's very much assuming bad faith. Any mention of possible COI has been exhausted here. I would suggest to drop it for the sake of continuing to have any form of productive discussion about this AfD. Focus on the content and not the contributor. – The Grid (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the content: The content of the article does not go into the underlying project management model ("PM Guide"). In terms of content, what makes IAPM's PM model different or better than PRINCE2 and the other known PM models? Of all the possible content, this would be the most relevant one here. A critical examination of the corresponding model is also missing in the article. What is good, what is perhaps not so good. Besides the primary sources, are there any other sources that deal with the content of IAPM's PM Guide? Unfortunately, I can't find very much external reception here. --Ilumeo (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is about any model or guide but about the organization itself, your comment is not relevant in my opinion. Drawing comparisons with another organization within the article is not relevant to this article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who get certified by this company should also know what they get certified in, no? --Ilumeo (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decide what you want. Above you wrote that there is too much advertising and here you suddenly write that not enough is written about the certification and what belongs to it. You change your argumentation as it suits you, no matter what you have said before. If people want to know precisely what the certification is about, they should go to the IAPM website. In my opinion, what you want is marketing, and that's not what wikipedia is for.GilbertPotter (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't understand me correctly. Too much is written about the certificates and too little is written about the underlying model. In my opinion, a high-quality article first describes the content of a model in detail and then very briefly mentions that there is also the possibility of certification. At least that's my opinion (and a tip for writing good articles in general). However, in this case, there is not enough external reception to properly research this information and present it here. --Ilumeo (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took time to read the mostly primary sources and the third party mentions all of which confirm that yes, it exists. However I cannot see anything about how IAPM contributes to the profession in the way that notable project management organisations such as PMI, APM, IPMA, Axelos (the PRINCE2 people) do. They just issues certificates and I have mostly concluded that this is a borderline diploma mill. I will also add (and feel free to dismiss this as WP:OR because it is purely personal opinion) that in the last 20 years of my career, during which I have employed well over 100 project managers and worked with many many more, I have never once seen anyone with an IAPM qualification. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three delete posts since you re-listed five days ago. Does that mean we now have enough to declare there is consensus? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written like an extremely run of the mill brochure for the company. Which makes sense because 99% of it is based on primary references that literally serve that purpose. Unfortunately what's left that isn't primary doesn't seem to be any better either. Really the way the remaining none primary references are written I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't paid pieces or at least churnalism. Even if they aren't though, what they write about clearly goes against the of the notability guidelines for companies. The fact that Sharon Florentine from CIO, whoever she and they are, thinks this company has one of the top 13 project management certifications for 2020 is meaningless. We don't base the notability of a company on the word of some rando in a churnalism blog post and there's nothing else here that we can base it on. So there isn't a justifiable reason to keep the article. Also the fact that good faithed edits by established editors are repeatedly being removed from the article by COI editors is a major issue. There's zero point in having an article about this company if their paid editors are going to try and WP:OWN it by not allowing people without COI issues make good faith edits to it. Screw that. There's an established process for adding content to articles that people with COI issues should go through to do so and how it's happening in this article isn't it. Going by their defensive debate tactics in this AfD I doubt they would be willing to do things in the proper way. Nor should we encourage them or COI editors by keeping the article and allowing them to camp in it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ([2]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting (diff1, diff2diff3diff4diff5edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too am unable to find independent, in depth coverage. That the creator is calling edits to the article vandalism doesn't bode well for collaborative editing either. StarMississippi 02:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969TT me 15:49, 12 January 2022 (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.