Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition

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

The notability of this book is highly questionably. The two links show nothing apart that it has been review in journals. There is nothing that indicates great importance within academia, never mind outside academia. Mootros (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All search tools (News, Books, Scholar) show enough results with significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:NB requirements. Google Scholar shows that this book is cited in a number of academic works. In addition, reviews in journals like:
- Brown, Peter H. (November 2005). "Book Review: Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition" (PDF). Economic Development Quarterly. 19 (4): 387–388. doi:10.1177/0891242405279767.
- Wheeler, Porter K. (2004). "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition" (PDF). Journal of the Transportation Research Forum. 43 (1): 145–148.
- Zahariadis, Nikolaos (September 2004). "Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition". Perspectives on Politics. 2 (3): 609–610. doi:10.1017/S1537592704620378.

are hardly something you could say "show nothing apart that it has been review in journals." Beagel (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beagel (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NBOOK #1, multiple reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:41, 17 November 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.