Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identifying and Managing Project Risk

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 keep: There are still delete comments so I don't think it can be keep'd just because of the withdrawal but there is consensus after that. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying and Managing Project Risk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2009, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR produced a few hits, but all minor mentions. Books returned the best results, but no in-depth coverage of the book, simply confirmation that it exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - after Tokyogirl79's excellent sourcing work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 01:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete it seems as I see no better improvement and it seems Todd Williams (User:Toddwill), the author was somehow connected to this, and there simply has been no improvement since then. Notifying RHaworth and Ronz SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No attempt to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy delete, but due to lack of references a regular delete is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one review, so maybe there's more? I did prune all of the OR out of the article, or at least the lengthy, lengthy OR sections. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a while, but I found some reviews via my school's database, which is pretty exhaustive. I also scrubbed the article pretty thoroughly since it was written more as a personal review or study guide for the book. I don't have a problem with some of it being re-added, but in far, far smaller doses than what was in the article and with sourcing, since it did come across as a bit OR. I don't doubt that what was in there was correct, but it needs to be more encyclopedic. Anywho, there's enough now to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Anyone think it fails NBOOK at this point? --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG which is now reflected in article thanks to Tokyogirl79 Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:BKCRIT criteria #1 per the four book reviews added to the article by Tokyogirl79. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Onel5969, SwisterTwister, and RHaworth: request to revisit the discussion per new sources found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the ping, Northamerica1000. As the nominator, I got notification of Tokyogirl79's work on the article. However, unlike other articles where I can actually go and verify those references, I get shut out of looking at 3 of the 4 that they added (you have to belong to Drexel). The fourth looks good, but is from a trade magazine, which doesn't list its criteria for book reviews (only technical articles). It could be the same process, but I'm not sure. Not only do I AGF with Tokyogirl79, but I have seen her excellent work on other articles (and have withdrawn nominations if I felt the withdrawal was appropriate). I would withdraw this nomination, but don't think it' proper to do if I can't verify the work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you copies of the articles, if you need me to. I'd post them in the userspace, but I'm not sure if they'd be considered copyvio or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sent 'em out! Check your email! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.