Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessons learned


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Lessons learned
AFD improperly performed by User:Dcabrilo GeeJo (t) (c) 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral - filling out AFD procedure. GeeJo (t) (c) 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Vote to retain for further expanson of this topic ... Review where lessons learnt is cited (internally) Business Process Improvement Cambridge-MIT Institute History of rail transport in Great Britain - RJBurkhart 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - FrancisTyers 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it seems I screwed up the procedure, have no idea how. Anyway, I am sure the term is used, and would perhaps be useful for wiktionary (though they must be sick of us dumping stuff on them), but the term as it is seems hardly applicable to ever become an encyclopedic entry. --dcabrilo 01:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As to what went wrong, see WP:AFD/Today for the full procedure. I'm personally in favour of switching to a one-step process, but that's the way it goes. :) GeeJo (t) (c) 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - no context. &mdash;  M ATHWIZ 20 20  T ALK 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * very weak Keep - There is a little more meat here than just a dictdef if it's spun correctly. I work in the consulting biz and "Lessons Learned" are often a significant part of the process, or component of the deliverable. Right now there are some interesting links which, if the article is deleted perhaps should go in Project Management? ++Lar 01:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per Lar. -- JJay 02:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete . A lot and really, most of "what links here" links are recent. No doubt the links are made to strengthen the case for keep only after this vote was called on. Do check all the "what links here" and when it was added to ascertain the real importance of this article. And lesson learned, the phrase itself is self-descriptive and doesn't need a page of its own on Wikipedia. __earth 02:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Project Management. If redirect fails, I vote for deletion. __earth 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Expand I can't sit in a meeting without hearing about this stuff. I'm not even sure if the people know what it means anymore. Having an encyclopdia article I can point to would make my life easier. --Pboyd04 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because it is a generic term. It has been used in reviews of every kind sunce reviews were invented, and the meaning is blindingly obvious. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

&#9775; 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Project Management. Yes, this is an important part of the standard project management program/toolbox, but it doesn't rate its own article.    Madman -- who is PMI-certified, by the way.  05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hopelessly a mess...they can start all over if it can ever be an article.--MONGO 09:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete since this is a completely non-specific (to say nothing of blindingly obvious) phrase cited as having a specific restricted meaning. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - having looked at Project Management, Lessons learned is not a technical phrase from the article - so why redirect?   Saltmarsh 11:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - a mess with ext links to Google searches on the name spelling??? And then use this fiasco as a lesson learned or learnt. Vsmith 03:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A rat's nest of an article, but keep and clean up. D e nni
 * Revised: Fresh review of content requested with balanced feedback on both style & substance. RJBurkhart 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a mess for several reasons. PatGallacher 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article has no real information and is unencyclopediac. It is a hodgepodge of junk, including recycled management double speak.  It's a mess and is just clutter.  Get rid of it. Hu 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and I'm closing it. If someone can write a better article (and by that I mean a completely new article with some semblance of order) that is not a dicdef, by all means recreate. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 3 January 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.