Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaprojects and 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 no consensus Mangojuice^talk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megaprojects and risk

probable spam Cate 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some users (sockpupets?) spammed a lot of pages on this and other articles, mainly book of the same authors. I don't think we need a review of a book. A reference on relative topic is enought. Cate 14:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevant topic is in Megaproject article, but it is copyvio. Cate 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have copyedited the article. --HResearcher 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Book on serious topic, published by Cambridge University Press. NawlinWiki 14:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the topic is worth an article, it should not have to be a book review (advertisement?). --DrTorstenHenning 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the topic comes up often in US media... I'm pretty sure these guys have been interviewed on NPR, etc. Might be good to check for copyvio though, as it reads like a book jacket. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — The article provides no real information on the topic in tis title - just a book review. It should be deleted and replaced withan article about the topic - not an article about a book about the topic. Also, there appear to be some copyvios in the article (just after a quick google search) Martinp23 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NawlinWiki and SB_Johnny. --HResearcher 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Megaprojects. --HResearcher 03:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is stubby, but the book is worth an entry. I've done a much more comprehensive review which I'll use for an extended article JQ 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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.