197:. 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 Knowledge (XXG), I don't know what should. Please clarify, after seeing the added links, why there is a reason to delete this article.
422:- 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.--
502:
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
600:
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
Knowledge (XXG) is - I thought having topic experts create articles that help educate about those topics is the whole point. This is why I personally use Knowledge (XXG) - to get good information. At this point I'm wanting to have nothing to do with the Knowledge (XXG) project at all.
627:
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. Knowledge (XXG) is not here for that purpose. Having
599:
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
552:
on
Knowledge (XXG)? 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 Knowledge (XXG)) and I was frankly surprised that there was no article in Knowledge (XXG) about it given the intense interest
524:
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. Knowledge (XXG) isn't ad
259:
I've just added "Selected articles on
Integrated Project Delivery" which shows the notability of IPD with outside news publications. To get an idea of how notable IPD is, a google search on +"integrated project delivery" returns 64,000+ hits - this is a very big deal in the construction industry.
48:. 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
501:
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
646:
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,
202:
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.
384:
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
193:. 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
525:
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.
547:
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
585:. 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.
342:. 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.
628:
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
Knowledge (XXG).
697:. Added introduction explaining the problems in construction (with citations), the new thinking pioneered by Toyota solving similar problems, and how the IPD method solves these construction problems. --
129:
167:
96:
91:
100:
83:
223:
Arcane topic to be sure and needs to is screaming to be rewritten in plain
English, but notability satisfied per references to industry publications.
458:
specifically. They are all general
Construction Industry publications as the topic is mainly of interest in that industry, with the exception of:
17:
87:
616:
706:
689:
660:
637:
620:
594:
562:
534:
515:
487:
449:
431:
410:
370:
352:
328:
307:
289:
269:
251:
233:
213:
182:
156:
65:
721:
36:
79:
71:
506:
published already on
Knowledge (XXG). Maybe this is the fate of Knowledge (XXG), a slow death due to impatience? --
530:
445:
366:
303:
247:
229:
361:
That's what I thought too. Take a closer look at the references. They come far short of established guidelines.
720:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
633:
590:
285:
178:
152:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
648:
643:
549:
503:
455:
419:
394:
387:. People who talk that way shouldn't use the same mouth to eat with. Seriously, does that sentence really
604:
350:
326:
211:
398:
440:
How about adding some coverage from newspapers and magazines that aren't closely tied to the subject?
526:
441:
362:
299:
243:
225:
629:
586:
281:
174:
148:
242:
No notability established. The only references are to sources intimately connected to the subject.
702:
685:
656:
612:
558:
511:
483:
427:
265:
194:
136:
Non notable business strategy. Seems to be a type of advertisement. Either way, it does not pass
343:
319:
204:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
406:
59:
578:
141:
582:
137:
698:
681:
652:
608:
554:
507:
479:
423:
315:
277:
261:
647:
nothing at all to do with marketing. Please cite anything meaningful that shows a
298:
He voted twice and is the article's creator and has a clear conflict of interest.
117:
280:
has now !voted two times. Closing admin is advised to keep that in consideration.
402:
54:
52:
a keep-close and this article might be subject to a new AfD). Regards
714:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
393:
anything, or is it just a vacuous string of abstract nouns and
680:. Added a section on the history of IPD with references --
454:
None of the newspapers or magazines are closely tied to
124:
113:
109:
105:
467:3. Journal of Public Works Management & Policy
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
724:). No further edits should be made to this page.
168:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
651:to be a marketing strategy!? Good luck.--
318:has revised first !vote to "comment" now.
166:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
144:. Prod was deleted without comment.
24:
464:2. Philadelphia Business Journal
473:5. Colorado Real Estate Journal
1:
707:23:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
690:05:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
661:15:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
638:14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
621:23:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
595:22:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
563:18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
535:18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
516:16:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
488:22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
450:18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
432:16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
411:15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
371:18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
353:09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
329:22:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
308:18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
290:07:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
270:04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
252:00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
234:00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
214:23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
183:19:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
157:19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
66:08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
470:4. Colorado State Government
461:1. Daily Journal of Commerce
553:this method has spawned. --
80:Integrated Project Delivery
72:Integrated Project Delivery
741:
382:, vehemently. This is a
717:Please do not modify it.
550:project delivery methods
504:project delivery methods
456:project delivery methods
32:Please do not modify it.
649:project delivery method
644:project delivery method
420:glittering generalities
395:glittering generalities
577:You need to look at
195:Lean Manufacturing
44:The result was
624:
607:comment added by
185:
171:
732:
719:
623:
601:
348:
324:
209:
172:
162:
127:
121:
103:
62:
57:
34:
740:
739:
735:
734:
733:
731:
730:
729:
728:
722:deletion review
715:
602:
527:ChildofMidnight
442:ChildofMidnight
403:Smerdis of Tlön
363:ChildofMidnight
344:
320:
300:ChildofMidnight
244:ChildofMidnight
226:ChildofMidnight
205:
123:
94:
78:
75:
60:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
738:
736:
727:
726:
710:
709:
692:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
630:Undead Warrior
587:Undead Warrior
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
540:
539:
538:
537:
519:
518:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
476:
475:
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
435:
434:
418:These are not
413:
376:
375:
374:
373:
356:
355:
346:Unusual? Quite
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
322:Unusual? Quite
293:
292:
282:Undead Warrior
272:
254:
217:
216:
207:Unusual? Quite
199:
198:
187:
186:
175:Undead Warrior
149:Undead Warrior
134:
133:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
737:
725:
723:
718:
712:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
675:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
641:
640:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
564:
560:
556:
551:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
500:
497:
496:
489:
485:
481:
477:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
459:
457:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
386:
381:
378:
377:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
351:
349:
347:
341:
338:
337:
330:
327:
325:
323:
317:
314:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
273:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:Strong delete
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
224:
222:
215:
212:
210:
208:
201:
200:
196:
192:
189:
188:
184:
180:
176:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
147:
143:
139:
131:
126:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
63:
58:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
716:
713:
694:
677:
498:
415:
389:
388:
383:
379:
345:
339:
321:
312:
274:
256:
239:
220:
219:
218:
206:
190:
163:
145:
135:
53:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
603:—Preceding
401:on this. -
257:Strong Keep
397:? I call
699:Gibsonf1
682:Gibsonf1
653:Gibsonf1
617:contribs
609:Gibsonf1
605:unsigned
555:Gibsonf1
508:Gibsonf1
480:Gibsonf1
424:Gibsonf1
399:bollocks
316:Gibsonf1
278:Gibsonf1
262:Gibsonf1
130:View log
695:Comment
678:Comment
499:Comment
416:Comment
275:Comment
191:Comment
97:protect
92:history
380:Delete
146:Delete
125:delete
101:delete
579:WP:RS
142:WP:RS
128:) – (
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
703:talk
686:talk
657:talk
634:talk
613:talk
591:talk
583:WP:N
581:and
559:talk
531:talk
512:talk
484:talk
446:talk
428:talk
407:talk
385:team
367:talk
340:Keep
313:Note
304:talk
286:talk
266:talk
248:talk
230:talk
221:Keep
179:talk
164:Note
153:talk
138:WP:N
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
390:say
173:--
170:.
140:or
61:Why
50:not
705:)
688:)
659:)
642:A
636:)
619:)
615:•
593:)
561:)
533:)
514:)
486:)
478:--
448:)
430:)
409:)
369:)
306:)
288:)
268:)
250:)
232:)
181:)
155:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
56:So
701:(
684:(
655:(
632:(
611:(
589:(
557:(
529:(
510:(
482:(
444:(
426:(
405:(
365:(
302:(
284:(
264:(
246:(
228:(
177:(
151:(
132:)
122:(
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.