Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Society for Professional Innovation 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 speedily deleted as a copyvio of www.ispim.org. Neil  ム  13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The International Society for Professional Innovation Management

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The only information on an "ISPIM" I could find was a mention of the Finnish "International Society for Product Innovation Management" (ISPIM) whose president was Vilkko Virkkala (Finnish Trade Review, March 31, 1993, Page 25). This is not the ISPIM article now at this AfD. The topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of ISPIM to develop an attributable article and does not meet Wikipedia notability. A fork article, ISPIM First 25 Years, was just deleted at AfD. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. &mdash; Timotab Timothy (not Timdagnabbit!) 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There are quite a few Google Hits (as well as Books, News, Scholar) for "International Society for Professional Innovation Management", but I can find little substantial coverage suitable for an article (one exception may be this, but I can't access it). Jakew 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Someday we might have a specific guideline on what would make a trade group notable. Some of them unquestionably are (e.g. IEEE), most of them are not.  This one, as far as I can determine from the article, isn't... the primary claim of notability in the article itself, "succeeded in developing a strong international network, leading to professional cooperation across nations and cultures" is so vague and nebulous as to be completely meaningless.  If they are notable, the article does an extremely poor job of expressing that.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found.  Article in its current form looks spammy Corpx 04:22, 4 September 2007 (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.