Talk:Association management company

I removed the strange {{prod}} tag which argued that this article is an advertisement. No idea what is being advertised other than the fact that there's a well established industry known by a TLA. The only thing wrong with the article is that it gives the impression that AMCs are only found in the US. andy 12:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

– and of course the complete lack of references and citations. I have added a tag in the hope someone adds these. (Remember that unsourced material can be removed at any time, so if nobody does add them, the entire article is vulnerable to deletion on that account). Notinasnaid 12:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article mentions "The first AMC was founded in 1886," i believe it is relevant to reference the first AMC by name (Fernley & Fernley), as well as provide a link to their Website (http://www.fernley.com). I believe this should be added. Bobdest (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's an advert. Anyway, what evidence is there that they were the first AMC? And I don't mean the first to call themselves an AMC because that's a game that anyone can play. andy (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advertisement, just a clarification of a fact stated in the article. Please refer to the following news release from the AMC Institute (http://www.amcinstitute.org/newsroom/releases/AMCI-081806pr.cfm). The release states "AMCinstitute, formerly known as the International Association of Association Management Companies (IAAMC), reports that half its member AMCs began their businesses since 1986. While the AMC model has roots dating back to 1886 with Fernley and Fernley, the first known AMC in the United States, the last 20 years have seen the most growth." Bobdest (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start "the first known AMC in the United States" isn't the same as the first in the US still less the world. And in any case a link to the company's website can only be justified if it enhances or extends the article. WP:EL says that it's OK to add links that point to pages containing "further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail... or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability". Is there, for example, a substantial quantity of unbiased material on the F&F website that would benefit someone who is researching AMCs? White papers, for example? Or is F&F a particular examplar of AMC practise? Because the website looks to me just like any other corporate website. andy (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "the AMC model has roots dating back to 1886 with Fernley and Fernley." Other facts from this article are refenced in this news release, as well. If you do not feel a link is justified, that is fine. However, I believe the statement "The first AMC was founded in 1886" should be changed to "The AMC model has roots dating back to 1886 with Fernley and Fernley." Bobdest (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the information was unsourced and contested, I removed it, along with a number of other unsourced and promotional details that came from the AMC Institute website, which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for a reliable source. Fernley and Fernley seems to be an active member of this trade group; please review WP:COI and WP:SPAM and ask other board members to do the same before creating or adding links/promotional info to articles. Flowanda | Talk 07:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association management company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607195437/http://www.asaecenter.org:80/PublicationsResources/content.cfm?ItemNumber=16048&navItemNumber=16325 to http://www.asaecenter.org/PublicationsResources/content.cfm?ItemNumber=16048&navItemNumber=16325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]