Talk:Agile Project Management (book)/Archives/2013

Original research and promotional concern

Sections of this article appear to be original research and analysis of the contents of the book being described, and other parts look to be promotional material from the publisher or author.

Someone with more knowledge on the subject might want to take a look and clean up the article, include some citations, and remove or cite some of the statements about the book and its topic. Dugwiki 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I have nothing to do with the author, publisher and make nothing for doing this. This is simply a synopis of the book and my notes as I read the book. I have done this for a couple of books and thought it would be usefull to others that might want to read the book. There should be enough to tell you whether the book is worth your time and then after reading it one may find it helpdul as a reference. If this or other entries I have made are not welcome then please let me know and I will not post them anymore.

-Todd 03:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I took Dugwiki's changes out and then thought better of it and replaced them. If people do not like this article or think it is infringing on the work or stepping across some line then it is not me to who should disagree. Please accept my apologies. Of course Dugwiki doesn't exist any more so maybe these are just 'arrows from the woods'. -Todd 03:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't exist any more? Man, I better tell my boss then; he's probably expecting me to come into work today! :)

Anyway, I flagged it in the process of categorizing other articles, including the full table of contents for the book which was included in a seperate article. I don't remember the specifics of what caught my eye, so it's certainly possible I misread a section. I was concerned about the amount of text that seemed to be taken pretty much directly from the book and presented seemingly as fact. But I can see where it's also possible the article can be taken as describing the book's views rather than promoting them. Either way, I flagged it for a closer look. Whatever the consensus goes with is fine with me, I'm neutral on it at this point. Dugwiki 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

All, I guess I don't really care what you do with this article, or the others. I have written (and will continue to write) articles that I think are helpful to people. I have read these books and have generated what I think are factual non-opinionated synopses of the books. I think they would be helpful in two ways:

1. Understanding if you want to read the book. You will know what the book covers after reading these articles.
2. Reference of what the book covers for future reference. I do this for myself. Then when I need to refer back to something I can.

I am not affiliated with the publisher or author in anyway shape or form. I often place a more biased and opinionate version of these articles in a newsletter I self-publish and sent them out, referring to Wikipedia as a place to get more information on the subject, due to the links in the Wikipedia article. I have been called down for "rehash" of contents and for "original research". The former is true... that is the intent. The latter is very wrong, I have been very careful about that. I am very sorry if this is not Wikipedia quality, I thought I was following the guidelines. -Todd 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Todd, I think it is a fine article and the flags should be removed. I have read this important book thoroughly, and it is a very good summary -- not original research. --Garrybooker 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

After comparing this article to other book reviews in the Business Books category, I think this article should not be deleted. Today is the 5-day deadline for review and potential deletions, so I am removing the tags. However, the Wikipedia editing app flgs this article as 5k over the recommended length of 32k, so the article does need to be shortened by about 20%. --Garrybooker 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Like the book - now what?

Howdy, while I'm VERY familiar with the use of Wiki's for sharing information for my games, I'm unsure of how to add my $0.02 worth - it's a great book, I'm re-reading and hiliting it on the 2nd pass. There were many "wake up" calls in the book that fit the development of software for new problem spaces quite well (something I seem to do all my life - just wish I could be considered an expert). --Uncleharpoon 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Agile PM substantially different than Agile Software Development?

I haven't read the book, but I apprehend that the key question here is whether Agile PM is something that can be applied beyond Agile Software Development. For example, can Agile PM be applied to making televisions, or in zinc-mining? If the answer is no (I tend to think so), then this content should probably be merged with Agile Software Development. In the meantime, I've made some of the language more plain and decreased general word count.Chrisbbehrens 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AgileProjectManagement Highsmith.jpg

Image:AgileProjectManagement Highsmith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)