Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakthrough project


 * 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 Delete Nakon  05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Breakthrough project and Derivative project

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These two appear to be more corporate buzzwords in the vein of Project champion from the same author. JuJube (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Imsorry, but do you actually have any real knowledge of project management or business? The reason they are both by the same author is because i am currently working on the subject and have discovered that wiki didnt yet have entries for them. Google results turn up 590,000 hits for derivative and 1,900,000 hits for a breakthrough project. They are valid project management terms and used in everyday business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reue (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but - in order for an article to be on Wikipedia - the subject must have independent, reliable sources that verify that the subject exists and is notable. JuJube, in nominating the articles for deletion, does not see evidence that this is the case, as the articles do not cite sources or independent coverage to show why they would be in an encyclopedia. Do you have sources or coverage that could show why these terms are important? My google search came up with a lot of unrelated hits for both terms, so maybe you could point out some of the relevant sites or articles that discuss these topics? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. These terms are not adequately sourced, do not apply to distinct phenomena of encyclopedic importance, and do not in fact appear to be real business terms in widespread use.  A google search in fact turns up relatively few listings, none of which I could find to support the article claims.  To the extent the terms are use their standard English meaning fully explains them.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly remake It'll be much faster to do so than to let either article stay in the hopes of being improved. --Kannie | talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (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.