Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative project management

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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative project management

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

Notability unclear at best. Hello71 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - definitely agree with the nominator that the notability of this topic under this title is murky. But this topic, under one name or another, has certainly been a hot subject of research over recent years in the construction industry (the area I know best). Personally I can't see any authoritative sources on this topic online. Maybe someone will add references in the next 7 days, if not I will change my 'vote' to delete. Sionk (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see plenty of Google books and Google scholar hits, which suggests the topic is notable enough. I have to say that at first glance the article reads well, yet on deeper inspection turns out to be uninformative. I can't even figure out whether its topic is the collaborative management of projects, or the management of collaborative projects. --Lambiam 21:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the reason of notability I now added some more links which partially are available only in German. This is the reason why in the first version I left them. To answer the "Title"-Comment: The collaboration happens in the management of the project i.e. the methodology of the project management is ment to be collaborative. (Pls. apologize my bad English). --Actano Ute (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being modest, or did you copy the article from somewhere? The article is written in very complex, long-winded but correct English, definitely not by someone with any deficiency in English. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable; see here, for example. Warden (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreation. The topic may be notable, but the content reads like an OR essay and is unsourced. Sandstein 06:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send for cleanup, article obviously needs to be rewritten and use in-line citations if it gets to stay. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2012 (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.