Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identifying and Managing Project Risk

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]

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]

Delete 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]