Deletion of A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

Comment: As per , the PMBoK is a required text for almost all the http://extension.berkeley.edu/subject/project.html|UC Berkeley Extension Project Management Classes.  Google Scholar shows that the PMBoK is cited 43 times (not a lot, but enough).  Amazon shows that it is the #334 on the book list.  Compare this with Design Patterns (book), which is #2609.  Searching Google is not necessarily a good measure of notability, but searching just google books turns up 880 hits.  I'm a project manager and consider this book to be the primary text in the area.  Project Management Professional says that there are 359,973 certified Project Management Professionals, all of whom presumably studied one of the 4 versions of this book.   The Project Management Professional exam is based on the material in the PMBoK, the Project Management Professional article says "Most of the questions reference the PMI A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (aka the PMBOK Guide).4" Before deleting this article, it would be good to have some Project Management Subject Matter Experts weigh in. (Disclaimers: I work for UC Berkeley, I've taken UC Berkeley Extension classes, I own four copies of the PMBoK, I'm taking the PMP exam in two days
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)

Comment: Any article that contains texts like:''The PMBOK Guide is process-based, meaning it describes work as being accomplished by processes. ...Processes overlap and interact throughout a project or its various phases. Processes are described in terms of:* Inputs (documents, plans, designs, etc.)* Tools and Techniques (mechanisms applied to inputs)* Outputs (documents, products, etc.)Each of the nine knowledge areas contains the processes that need to be accomplished within its discipline in order to achieve an effective project management program. Each of these processes also falls into one of the five basic process groups, creating a matrix structure such that every process can be related to one knowledge area and one process group.''whatever else it is, is |no contribution to |any body of knowledge.  Most of these articles about meaningless management theories are there to promote somebody's product or consulting business, in my impression.  If this article about the book has to stretch such small ideas into such long sentences, and construct elaborate tautology (rhetoric)|rhetorical tautologies and trivialisms, I wince to think what the full text is like
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NONSENSE||WP:CB)