Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Followership


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Project Followership

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod about an obscure and non-notable approach to project management. There are virtually no ghits for "Project Followership", and most of them seem to trace back to one Italian source. This is a neologism and fails WP:NEO. There's also a major WP:COI - the article's author seems to be an author of the primary reference for this subject. Interestingly the article has only been edited by SPAs, the most recent of whom has downplayed the original author's role in this subject. andy (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. andy (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Smith, I am Marco Sampietro, one of the author involved in Project Followership. Honestly I did not upload the entry. Is the email/name of the person that did it available? However this is my comment. The entry, for my knowledge of the topic, is accurate. Of course project followership is quite new, however I would not call it obscure and non-notable. Obscure seems indicating something that has not clear objectives and boundaries, while project followership means applying the project management discipline with a bottom-up perspective, by taking the project team member point of view. The difference between project followership and project management is like speaking about subordinated and boss: they are both workers but they have very different responsbilities. About non-notable I can agree that there are not may hits but NASA, one of the co-founder of the project management discipline, accepted project followership as a topic for its Project Management Challenge, one of the most important conferences around the world. I do not understand the meaning of SPA you mentioned in your post. Can you explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampmarc (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SPA. There's nothing wrong as such with a "single purpose account" but in this particular case I'm very concerned. The entry was created by "Marcosampietro" and now we have a comment from "Sampmarc" who says he is Marco Sampietro but has noting to do with the original author despite having an identical name. Meanwhile edits and positive comments have been made by two other SPAs. This looks very much like sockpuppetry. andy (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the answer. It is not possible to know the email of the original contributor? What I can imagine is that one of my students did the entry. I knew about this entry because one of my business contacts emailed me the presence of project followership on Wikipedia. However, regadless the origin, to me what is important is that the article depicts the real origin of project followership. If the concern is to check if I am the real Marco Sampietro, you can write directly to my email. I do not know if this is Wikipedia practice, if it is, I have no problems to publish it (since it is already present in my personal web page).Best regards. Marco S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampmarc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Another buzzword wannabe describing a vague management theory: a recent Project Management discipline that looks at projects with a bottom up approach. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you want to comments the fact that it is not so widespread ok, but speaking about vague management theory is quite offendig. In the last release we are speaking about a book of 250 pages, with contributors both from Project Management Institue and Business School among the top 50 in the world. If the entry is not detailed it can be improved.Sampmarc (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the deletion nomination at the top of this page. The article is about a term that is not in widespread use - see WP:NEO for what this means. I don't see how the article can be improved because it clearly fails one of wikipedia's cornerstones, namely notability. andy (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact I agree with this point, I was just commenting the post of Ihcoyc that was out of scope.Sampmarc (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Going solely by the material presented in the article itself, it is, indeed, a vague management theory: “Too often projects are passively accepted rather than actively participated in. The issue is not that the birth of the project is not shared, but mostly that many people feel lost, since they don’t have the right knowledge to understand the dynamics of the project. So project meetings are often turned into failed affairs where irrelevant questions are posed (and this decreases participation and increases conflicts), the kick-off meeting is considered a waste of time where you can get free sandwiches, and planning meetings become technical summits where everybody speaks in impenetrable jargon, creating mutual dissatisfaction.” Reinterpreting the project according to a bottom-up logic seeks to address these problems by equipping each participant with right tools.  It's all about "what this can do for you" rather than "what, exactly, does this involve".  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Totally agree with nom and Smerdis of Tlön. Seems like article is written purely to promote someones business theory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:10, 13 September 2011 (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.