Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work package


 * 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. If anyone wants to redirect this title to Work breakdown structure, go ahead. Deor (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Work package

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a promotional article for Advanced Work Processing, a technique for which I can find almost no references except the publications of the Work Packaging Institute. Almost everything cited here is the work --see the adjacent AfD for Olfa Hamdi.  DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the article needs more work, but what justifies deletion? Is your objection on "Work package, the project management technique" or "Advanced Work Packaging, the new technique that is an improved piece of Work package"?
 * A simple Google Search shows:
 * A yearly conference about Advanced Work Packaging here
 * A for-profit company already consulting about the technique: Construct X
 * There is already Books sold about the technique here - No promotions (I'm not affiliated with anybody)  :p
 * Construction Owners Association of Alberta explaining the technique.
 * I'm sure there's much more, but I didn't have a chance yet to improve the article more. That's why I opened a discussion on the talkpage in case anybody had other thoughts.
 * That is a credible enough topic to educate Wikipedia readers about it.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Isn't this also a term in linguistics? Bearian (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Revert to this previous version of the article or (as a very close second preference) redirect to Work breakdown structure. I am rather less than thrilled to be reminded that one of the easiest (if usually unintentional) ways to get mediocre but not terrible content on a fairly (but not blindingly) certainly notable topic deleted from Wikipedia is to add clearly promotional material concerning a somewhat related product to the article and wait for one or other of our more experienced and war-bitten editors to wander by and try to oblige. In this case, an earlier not noticeably promotional stub version of the article does exist, and there is a probably clearer exposition in another article of the topic in its standard context. So either of the above solutions would be better than straight deletion of the article - though I would have little if any objection if the last six months' edits on the current article were WP:REVDELLED. PWilkinson (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Work breakdown structure. 's suggestion to revert to an older stub version is reasonable, but that leaves us with what is effectively a WP:DICDEF. As it's already discussed to a similar degree in the work breakdown structure article, that seems like a logical place to redirect. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, although redirect is not a bad idea. Looking at the history of this article, it began as an article about a workflow concept for project development (in 2008) and blossomed recently into an article with a clear promotional bent. Had it not taken that latter route it would possibly have lingered as a not-terribly-useful but innocuous article. As it is, it violates wp:promo but does not meet wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and LaMona. At best, redirect.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:10, 23 September 2015 (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.