Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Project Delivery

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. While I acknowledge that one of the keep-!votes has a COI as the creator, the delete !votes are not convincing enough to make "delete" the consensus. So this debate has been closed as not gaining consensus to delete (and I want the creator to keep in mind that while this defaults to keep, it is not a keep-close and this article might be subject to a new AfD). Regards SoWhy 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Project Delivery

edit
Integrated Project Delivery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable business strategy. Seems to be a type of advertisement. Either way, it does not pass WP:N or WP:RS. Prod was deleted without comment. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Response from Fred Gibson, Architect: Please refer to the revised page which includes links showing notability. This is a new construction delivery method created by key institutions in the construction industry developed over the last few years inspired by Lean Manufacturing. It is not an advertisement - there is nothing to buy with this. It represents a radical departure from standard construction that has been problematic over the past century and is now coming into use. The reason for my posting this article is to help educate the construction industry on this new development - I am an architect and there is no money in this for me. I will stop building out the article until the notice to delete is removed as I don't want to waste time. If this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I don't know what should. Please clarify, after seeing the added links, why there is a reason to delete this article.
The method needs to have been discussed in reliable sources unrelated to the authors of the method. For example, has it been covered in a journal or newspaper? If you can find and add these references then it will go a long way to establishing the notability of the method. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arcane topic to be sure and needs to is screaming to be rewritten in plain English, but notability satisfied per references to industry publications. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He voted twice and is the article's creator and has a clear conflict of interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is notable enough within the construction field to retain. The referencing needs tidying up (i.e., linking the content of the article to each reference clearly) but they look like reasonable sources to me. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought too. Take a closer look at the references. They come far short of established guidelines.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vehemently. This is a project delivery method in which the interests of the primary team members are aligned in such a way that the members can be integrated for optimal project performance resulting in a collaborative, value-based process delivering high-outcome results to the entire building team. People who talk that way shouldn't use the same mouth to eat with. Seriously, does that sentence really say anything, or is it just a vacuous string of abstract nouns and glittering generalities? I call bollocks on this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are not glittering generalities - they are cut and pasted from the industry publications and all have distinct meaning in the field - not emotive. For example "Primary Team Members" = Architect/Contractor/Owner but with this new collaborative method, can also include trade subcontractors and material fabricators and engineers. I'd like to improve the text to make it more readable to a general audience, but the delete tag is preventing me from investing any more time in this. Also, when I address someone's delete claim here and make the change so that the claim no longer holds, the delete claim is not changed. So I'm really not impressed with this process at all.--Gibsonf1 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding some coverage from newspapers and magazines that aren't closely tied to the subject? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the newspapers or magazines are closely tied to project delivery methods specifically. They are all general Construction Industry publications as the topic is mainly of interest in that industry, with the exception of:
1. Daily Journal of Commerce
2. Philadelphia Business Journal
3. Journal of Public Works Management & Policy
4. Colorado State Government
5. Colorado Real Estate Journal
--Gibsonf1 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to improve the article, but because it is tagged for deletion, I don't want to spend time doing that and have it deleted. I'm not sure what you guys are up to around here, but when something is first put up, and I just started this yesterday, it is called an *early* stage. If you simply delete everything that isn't perfect at the very beginning, and slap a delete tag on it while it's still being worked on, how is anything decent going to get added to wikipedia by industry experts such as myself? I've already spent far more time than I had planned inserting references to prove the method is notable (a google search would have shown this for any interested editor as well). If the delete tag is removed, I would like to make this a very good article which will take many days, far better than the other project delivery methods published already on Wikipedia. Maybe this is the fate of Wikipedia, a slow death due to impatience? --Gibsonf1 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'est la vie. It should be deleted as written. If you had any legitimate sources I suspect you would have added them. You've had no problem spending time defending the article here. And writing an article on a subject in which you have an interest is a violation of policy. Wikipedia isn't ad space. So far there is only one keep vote from someone who isn't the article's creator and conflicted by their involvement in the subject. And the keep vote suggests the references "look" good. Which is what i thought too until i had a closer look.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm fascinated - how are the many periodicals I've referenced, the industry standard groups I've referenced not legitimate sources? What, by your definition, are legitimate sources? Shouldn't you then go and delete all the other project delivery methods on Wikipedia? I am an expert in construction, but I have no financial interest in the method (in the sense that I can expect any reward whatsoever from posting this on Wikipedia) and I was frankly surprised that there was no article in Wikipedia about it given the intense interest this method has spawned. --Gibsonf1 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at WP:RS and WP:N. Most project delivery methods are not notable on wikipedia. We are not here to tell how to promote something. Unless that method has had extreme success and or has been featured in multiple reliable sources, it will not be notable. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are not familiar with the construction industry as the various project delivery methods have been and continue to be used in billions of dollars of construction. How that is not notable or interesting, especially for people trying to understand how construction works and how you pay for it, is beyond me. The delivery methods are like different kinds of contracts you can set up in a generic way - there is no promotion here, and I don't know how to help you realize that at this point. I truly wonder what the point of Wikipedia is - I thought having topic experts create articles that help educate about those topics is the whole point. This is why I personally use Wikipedia - to get good information. At this point I'm wanting to have nothing to do with the Wikipedia project at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibsonf1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be interesting, wikipedia is not the place for it. Like I've stated before, we are not here to teach other businesses marketing strategies. If they want to learn a market strategy, they can find a website devoted to that type of stuff. Wikipedia is not here for that purpose. Having good experts create articles is a good thing when the subject of the article is notable. Marketing strategies normally are not notable because they generally do not pass guidelines to be on Wikipedia. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A project delivery method is simply not a marketing strategy - you're quite wrong on this. Do some homework and you'll find out. It is a method, quite complex, of how construction projects are structured to both complete the work and establish contractual relations between the various parties. It is about execution, nothing at all to do with marketing. Please cite anything meaningful that shows a project delivery method to be a marketing strategy!? Good luck.--Gibsonf1 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Integrated_Project_Delivery&oldid=1069487299"