Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensions Management Institute


 * 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. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Pensions Management Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

At Articles for deletion/Irish Institute of Pensions Managers, pointed out that this article is likewise in bad shape. Looking at it, I agree - almost every single source is primary and I could not find sufficient sourcing to meet WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. While also difficult to ignore the PROMO, NOTWEBHOST, COI and related content issues, the fact is that (aside from the subject's own website) there are insufficient non-primary/reliable sources available to establish the basic facts and provide more than a short stub. As expected by WP:CORPDEPTH. Otherwise, in terms of WP:SIGCOV, a WP:BEFORE search through reliable mainstream news sources in the UK (Times = 9 results, Guardian = 4 results, Telegraph = 3 results) results barely a few trivial passing mentions. No substantive coverage. While the subject appears to find itself into some book search results its as a "by line" in the author listings rather than the topic (the principal topic of coverage of a book or books) in its own right. Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - thanks to Guliolopez for sharing his search results from reliable mainstream news sources. I failed to find adequate coverage to suggest that the Pensions Management Institute should have an article at this time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major professional body with enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I try not to query other's contributions to these discussions, but I have to ask. In terms of "sourcing", what are you referring to? Of the 14 references in the article, 10 of them are to the subject's own website/press releases. Even outside the article, the available coverage is from primary or republished sources. In terms of it being a "major professional body", what are you comparing it to? "Major" by what measure? The article claims (without a source I note) that there are 20 employees and 6500 paid members. Other "major professional bodies" are up to 100 times bigger. Like the Project Management Institute (650,000 members), Federation of Small Businesses (UK) (160,000 members), British Medical Association (160,000), Chartered Management Institute (150,000), etc. The subject is no where near the top 100 UK membership orgs by size. Not even close. By a factor of 10... Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2022 (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.