Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avanti Construction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avanti Construction

Avanti Construction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Concerns about notability raised at DRV are sufficient to list. — Coren (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable; a general query results in more Avanti-named companies than "an approach to collaborative working." seicer | talk | contribs 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    The lingering issues have been corrected. seicer | talk | contribs 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that this project was supported by an arm of the British government might give this some notability, if referenced; it is not. The prose of the article contains some unacceptably vague and evasive text

Avanti mobilised existing enabling technologies in order to improve business performance by increasing quality of information and predictability of outcomes and by reducing risk and waste.

so even if the project is notable, large portions of it would need to be cut. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep after extensive edits. The prose still needs a stiff dose of concrete, plain English. The text is still plagued with buzzwords and zippy-sounding but vague phrases like "action research programme", and it still uses "business" generically where "construction industry" seems meant; but it seems reasonably clear that this is a government sponsored standardization initiative. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What the hell? "Undeleted and sent to AfD"? This is process wonking bureaucracy at it's best. John Reaves 16:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So yeah, delete...again. John Reaves 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reversed a speedy deletion that was generally agreed was on flimsy ground so that a proper discussion on the merits of the article could be achieved. Hence the AfD. — Coren (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of credible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -- now that it is improved--see below. weak keep I found and added some information. Not really as good as desirable, but something. It actually was a cooperative standards group. DGG (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable company. Dgf32 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressing all the issues and concerns:
    • I have improved this article with a multitude of relevant internal links, to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards, as it needed to be wikified. I have therefore removed the {{wikify}} tag, following the procedure specified in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified.
    • This article needed sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications, as primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article generally are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I have included more appropriate citations from reliable sources. I have therefore removed the {{primarysources}} tag.
    • I have rewritten the article and I have addressed all the issues raised by all the administrators (above). I have tried to show its notability and I have given evidence of the need of this project and of how the UK government realised the importance of developing a collaborative approach to the construction industry. The BS 1192, a British Standard, relied heavily on Avanti. You can check this by clicking on http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030163398 (the Avanti logo is there). And BS 5555 also used the Avanti methodology. Reference number 6 shows the government involvement.
    • I would like to sincerely thank all of you administrators above for your comments and suggestions: I have taken them into deep and serious consideration and I hope I have now matched all the requirements.
    • I look forward to the outcome of the review/discussion.
    • Thanking you in anticipation --Machiavelli2008 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe that the revisions and new sourcing help to demonstrate notability, and they certainly do demonstrate government involvement (something several contributors above mentioned that they'd like to see verified. (And, of course, this can't be a non-notable company, since it isn't a company, but a project. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the page still needs a good dose of copyediting (now where did I put those scissors?) but that is an editorial-type question not an AfD matter. Notability as a government sponsored programme has been established by substantial secondary sources so the page meets WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK; I have cleaned up the formatting (removed spurious breaks, put references after the punctuation instead of before etc.) and moved it to a more accurate title (it is described in the official DTI documentation as a programme). As nicely described by Smerdis of Tlön, the prose needs de-jargonning but that will come. BlueValour (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment; the later edits seem to have addressed the concerns about the article fairly well; I note that while I am the nominator de facto, I have no opinion about keeping the article or not. — Coren (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am no longer in favor of deleting the article. I was mistaken in my original assessment of the article, thinking it was a constrution firm. Since nomination, the article has been signficantly improved, relocated to a more appropriate namespace. I render no opinion on the notability of the subject, the Avanti Programme, as I don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject area to render an opinion. Dgf32 (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • changed above to Strong Keep. Excellent good job of editing! DGG (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, the article has significantly improved to the point where our inclusionary guidelines have been met and exceeded. RFerreira (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - well re-written and Cited. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been heavily revised such that the original rationale for deletion is now moot. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2008 (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.