Gibsonf1
Proposed deletion of Integrated Project Delivery
edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Integrated Project Delivery, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Integrated Project Delivery
edit
I have nominated Integrated Project Delivery, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Project Delivery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Making an article notable
editHi, I read your comments on the AfD for Integrated Project Delivery. Wikipedia is all about notability and verifiable sources really. The full policy is at WP:RS, but in a nutshell
Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
So, in your example, you really need reviews of IPD or commentary on its application and use in journals or newspapers that are independent of the groups that created IPD. Hope this makes sense, if not, reply here and I'll try and help more. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nomination of Lean Construction Institute for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lean Construction Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.