Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 June 30}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 June 30|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:
 



Active discussions[edit]

30 June 2016[edit]

29 June 2016[edit]

MonteCristo[edit]

MonteCristo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRVing just to get this restored to my userspace, several admins have declined requests for userfication. They are probably apprehensive because it was created by a now-banned user who abused a sockpuppet account.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Prisencolin (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Who is "several admins"? Anyone besides Sandstein's closing statement and Graeme Bartlett's inquiry at WP:REFUND#MonteCristo? —Cryptic 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well I was awaiting a reason why Sandstein did not want to restore the page. Prisencolin wrote over half the content, so creation by banned user (Wikipedia masterr) should not prevent userfication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I declined userfication because I do not consider it worth the while, and because in general I am opposed to the practice of resurrecting deleted material as a matter of course. Deletion means deletion, and undeletion should be the exception in cases where there are specific reasons to believe the content may be ready for mainspace very soon. No such reasons have been advanced here. But as I made clear other admins may feel differently; my view as the closer is of no particular importance in this regard.  Sandstein  05:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin[edit]

Gerald Walpin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems page was (borderline) notable, back in 2010, as covered now after death in New York Times page: nytimes.com/2016/06/27/.... Undelete, and we can add more cite sources to text. Thanks. Wikid77 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • While I can't say I agree with the original discussion, the reason for deletion was BLP1E. And this new source focuses on that one event (his firing and the events that led up to his firing). So while I'd lean toward a restore outcome as the best actual outcome IMO, I don't know that this source is actually all that much of a great reason to restore. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

27 June 2016[edit]

Universal trinity[edit]

Universal trinity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was during its discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Universal trinity suddenly speedy deleted by User:RHaworth who declines now. Note that this general (mainly theosophic) disquisition contains no WP:SYNTH. The direct parallelism from a formation–perception–choice trinity from listed theosophic sources towards a calculation–proving–conjecturing trinity was not included in the sources I listed so far but I also found no source that mentions this parallelism otherwise. The term "universal trinity" is often used in theosophy so that sources that refer anyhow to the parallelisms are definitely found soon. An encyclopedia is forced to work with expression parallelisms to avoid copies so that this unannounced speedy deletion was unjustified. I request userfication. MathLine (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, this needed to be deleted. No, it wasn't a hoax. ([1] for example). It may qualify as A11, but that supposes that our editor and the author of the source are the same person (or closely related) which isn't in evidence AFAIK. So restore and list at AfD just because I suppose it's not impossible there is a notable subject here somewhere (rather than IAR endorse). Hobit (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • S Marshall is correct, the request is for userfication and that should be granted. I'd missed that. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Although the juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" does appear in one source, and an article written based on that source would not be a hoax, the article under discussion was indeed a hoax as written. Either that, or WP:OR so far gone as to be indistinguishable from a hoax. In either case, I don't see there is any benefit to restoring the content, other than slavish deference to bureaucratic process. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If you do a web search for the phrase in quotes, there are a lot of hits. Some even seem to be the concept this article was trying to cover. Not a hoax. Or if it is, it's not a Wikipedia-only hoax. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • The "article" was total nonsense. Here is a sample: "Universal trinity is the condition of the logics and mathematics perceivable by all finite entities to be separated into the branches calculation , proving , and registering derived conjectures without a known proof or disproof, it also includes the continuation of this separation to a persistent influence of three likewise separate fields on and of working minds in all social groups and their interactions, and it includes working potentials between these branches. A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation The first position of the working potential between the branches of the unsolved and of calculation. Justice is a negotiating bridge between the unsolved and purely basic work to solve it and it appears in a trinity of states, the separation of powers , as judicative. Therefore, this position is the basis of judicative..." This seems like an obvious hoax to me. If there is a concept that is called "universal trinity" in the literature, that is not what this is. If you believe that there is a source that supports this, please present it now. Otherwise, as I've already said, nothing is preventing any editor from writing an article based on sources on "universal trinity" that is not a hoax. Whether such an article meets our inclusion criteria is a separate question from whether the nonsense under discussion is a hoax. But since you believe it is not a hoax, I assume that you have reliable sources that verify the sentence "A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation", for example. Otherwise, I would invite you to withdraw your !vote here since your reasoning is manifestly based on a false premise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's just note that the nominator's actual request here was for userfication. I agree with Sławomir Biały that for the moment I don't see particularly good grounds to restore the article to mainspace; but userfication is a perfectly reasonable request.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, oppose userfication. I'm inclined to agree with Sławomir Biały that the deleted version of this article is essentially incoherent and nonsensical. The purpose of userficiation is to allow improvements to articles that are not quite ready for the article namespace. In this case, I do not see any sort of viable article coming from the content in question. There is almost zero connection between the external links provided and the intended subject of the article, whatever that might be. --Kinu t/c 22:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Allow Userification I see no basis for declining userification. I don't think that the article constitutes a hoax per the speedy process, but that's an excusable error rendered moot by simply userifying as requested. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion and neutral on userfication. Yes, it's a hoax/patent nonsense. I doubt a coherent article can come out of it. But I'm not going to rule it out. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse my deletion, oppose userfication. Let us be gentle and call it original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If a notable source uses metaphors from which notable information is derivable by evaluating them is it then always original research to write about this information directly? --MathLine (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg[edit]

File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no consensus in the discussion for the deletion of the image from this article. One editor opined that it failed NFCC, without giving any reasons wny that was the case, and another editor (myself) disagreed. That is most certainly not a consensus to delete. Further, the closing admin gave no policy rationale for deletion, writing only "The result of the discussion was: remove". This is not a sufficient rationale for the removal of an image from an article, especially considering that there was no consensus to do so. BMK (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse as closing administrator. Stefan2 cited WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c for the reason of removal from History of Abercrombie & Fitch. I ignored the latter because that was a small error on Beyond My Ken's fault (Abercrombie & Fitch was linked in the FUR rather than History of Abercrombie & Fitch, that much was obvious). However, the concern of NFCC#8 was still not properly addressed; there was an obvious lack of a policy-backed reason—"I disagree that the images of the two founders of Abercrombie & Fitch do not satisy the requirements of NFCC for the History of Abercrombie & Fitch article" was not sufficient—and the burden of proof to properly refute said claim fell on BMK, per WP:NFCCE. I simply could not have closed the discussion any other way. BMK's non-argument does not supersede the incredibly stringent project-wide WP:NFCC policy.
Please note that the image has disruptively been restored in the history article by BMK against consensus and policy. I will not attempt to remove it again as I have the brain capacity to wait out a discussion. — ξxplicit 12:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It's your closing that is being reviewed, so your "endorsement" is meaningless. You did not evaluate the discussion and sum up the consensus, because there was essentially no discussion, and certainly no consensus. One editor said "X", without further explanation, and another editor said "not X" without further explanation. Your acceptance of "X" was, therefore, a personal evaluation on your own part -- otherwise known as a supervote -- and not a summation of consensus. You, in fact, did not perform what a closing admin is expected to perform, an evaluation of the consensus discussion, and instead substituted your own judgement for it. You then compounded your error by threatening to block me on my talk page, when you must have known (or certainly should have known) that as the closing admin you are, by definition, "involved" in the dispute, and therefore cannot perform a block. The only fair outcomne here is to re-open the discussion for further input, to determine what the actual consensus of the community is, and not what the personal opinion of the cloisng admin is. BMK (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I will also note that the editor Stefan2's judgment has come under very close scrutiny lately. See this AN/I thread in particular. BMK (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The point Stefan2 cited of NFCC is pretty clear: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Did you prove otherwise? No, you didn't. My closure was based on the fact that Stefan2 presented a policy-based argument for the removal of the image from an article, while you simply disagreed without citing policy to strengthen your argument. Oddly enough, it's exactly what WP:SUPERVOTE#Advice to editors decrying a supervote close describes—I assume you read that part, since you're so confident that my closure indicates otherwise. I did not elaborate on my closure because it seemed obvious, but I'm sure it wouldn't have made a difference and we'd still be here. I still don't quite understand where this accusation of a "supervote" stems from. Where exactly did I indicate any bias, how did I instill my opinion despite citing the policy-based argument that led to my closure? Please do elaborate further on this point.
I didn't have to "prove otherwise" because Stefan2 made none of those arguments, he simply stated an opinion, that the image failed certain parts of NFCC, with no explanation whatsoever. You, as the closer, are not supposed to provide the arguments that the people in the discussion should have made, not are you to assume that is what his opinion meant. You provided that on your own, which if you wanted to do so, you should have done as a participant in the discussion - to which I would have responded -- and not either in your close or here in the Deletion Review. Closers may have a certain amount of discretion, but that discretion cannot extend to closing on the basis of the closers' opinion and not on the basis of the content of the discussion. That would invalidate the entire concept of the uninvolved admin who sums up consensus in their close. Again, what you did was to make a WP:supervote, which is not your job. BMK (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you are incorrect; the burden is entirely on you. WP:NFCCE itself states: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Why is this? Simple. Per WP:NFCCP: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia". You failed to provide a policy-backed argument. Stefan2 citing WP:NFCC#8 is pretty self explanatory, whether or not you like or agree with it. Or are we really going to sit here and argue, "He cited NFCC#8, but I have no idea what he meant!"? His argument was clearly supplied, and I had no opinion on the matter, I simply closed the nomination based on the discussion. You did not do your part as policy requires, which is why the discussion was closed the way it was. Based on the strengths of the arguments, it is literally a ratio of 1:0. — ξxplicit 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, I apologize, I had no idea that "NFCC" was a magic word, and that all you have to do is write it and the file will be deleted unless someone counters the magic word with their own battery of words. Maybe the "abuse" you see coming at admins who work the files area stems from this rather odd belief, that all anyone has to do is whisper in a throaty voice "NFCC, my precious" and the image's fate is sealed. In my neck of the woods, where we frequently call a spade precisely what it is, we have a name for that kind of thing, having to do with the undigested effluvia of bovine animals, but perhaps I'll just say that "I call shenanigans" on that concept, and that the encyclopedia would be a lot better off without that peculiar notion. Any claim that an image doesn't pass the requirements of NFCC needs to be a full and specific one, not just "It don't pass NFCC #32B". When a full and specific claim is made, I would be more than happy to counter it, but all the other deserves is negation, because, in fact, there are no magic words, just consensus discussions. Which the closer, may I repeat, it supposed to evaluate without adding their own interpretation. BMK (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's how policy is written. You not liking it is another matter entirely. — ξxplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I was simply able to drop the stick. I decided not to escalate the situation. You're confused if you believe me to be someone who gets worked up on Wikipedia of all places; I've been threatened with ANI before, and I highly encouraged it earlier this year over my actions, yet not a single report with my name on it has ever been made...
No, you'll "drop the stick" when you simply admit that you screwed up and confused the role of an advocate with that of on uninvolved admin. There's nothing terrible about making a mistake, everyone does it, and it's usual better to admit it so everyone can move on. Digging in your heels is not the optimal choice here. BMK (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Whatever allows you to sleep at night. — ξxplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what point was meant to be made about that ANI discussion, other than creating an ad hominem. I am well aware of Stefan2's inability to properly approach editors and have caught several of his mistakes in the past. The only things I was able to take away from that thread: 1) a slight history of Betacommand; 2) understanding the abuse editors receive over the application and enforcement of the NFCC policy, and where it stems from; 3) and the fragility of the community. — ξxplicit 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • relist I went back and forth on this. FfD closers generally have wide discretion when it comes to deleting non-free images. Generally it's pretty open-and-shut. This one is not. I'd think it's clear that having a picture of both of the founders in the article on the history of the company they started would be a thing we should just have. It's not clear Stefan2 felt otherwise (thus the question about looking for other images). But the fact we have nothing on where the image comes from makes things a bit less clear-cut. And I suspect there is an argument that we don't need an image of both founders (?). Realizing there isn't typically a large amount of participation at FfD, I hope that after this DRV we'll get a bit more input on a relist. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And FfD needlessly removes yet another image that benefits the encyclopaedia without doing anyone any harm. Hooray for free content ideology!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I strongly agree with this. I think we worry far too much about reuse by others (who may not hit prong #1 of the fair use guidelines laid down by the US Supreme Court as clearly as we do) in cases like this where use by us is clearly fair use. But my !vote is based on the rules that be rather than the rules that should be. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is true and unfortunately happens much too often, IMO, which is the primary reason I usually stay far away from the whole files area, because the deck is already stacked against usage, and then some of the regulars compound the problem by an overly strict interpretation of the rules instead of a safe and reasonable one. BMK (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Let's just note here that NFCC#8 is being treated, at FFD, and by some of my DRV colleagues below, as if (1) it was an objective test and (2) this image failed it. I would invite you all to set your brains to "evaluate" and then read NFCC#8 closely. I think you will observe that the criterion is entirely subjective. The image might enhance one person's understanding without enhancing another's. I think it follows that NFCC#8 should not be invoked without a clear consensus to do so, and I think FfD has been overreaching NFCC#8 for as long as I've been critically evaluating FfD closes at DRV.

        I've always thought that FfD is attractive to people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. There are some exceptions, but by and large they're here to remove non-free content. This is a conflict that those of us who are here to build an encyclopaedia we'll need to deal with at some point. Non-free content that's not doing anyone any harm and plausibly enhances someone's understanding should not be removed.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

      • Cryptic and I must have been typing at the same time. Interesting!—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist. I agree with Hobit; Explicit's decision is reasonable but we needed more participation in this discussion. NFCC#8 is obnoxious but it's a policy and BMK didn't engage with it at all. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    I may have uncovered a free image of Abercrombie; see Talk:David T. Abercrombie#Free image. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. It was pretty obviously in line with WP:NFCC. Kelly hi! 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn NFCC#8 is being used inappropriately, pretty much any time I see it used. The anti-fair-use proponents routinely expect ridiculous things in terms of 'understanding'. If a relevant non free photo of a founder of a major company fails to be acceptable for an article on that company, what will EVER pass NFCC#8? Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't inappropriate, this is exactly what NFCC#8 says. As a foundation-based policy, it overrides any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse – definition of image being used decoratively. Anyone who seriously suggests that removing this image somehow reduces readers' understanding of the article History of Abercrombie & Fitch is deluding themselves and us. The image remains available for use in David T. Abercrombie, which is valid. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely, showing images of the two men, Abercrombie and Fitch who created the firm "Abercrombie & Fitch" is most certainly "decorative", without a doubt. BMK (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided as to whether this met WP:NFCC#8, and thus the decision to remove it from the History of A&F article is the right one. But I know I don't like the way we got there. #8 is fundamentally different from the other NFCC in that every one of the others is either entirely or almost entirely objective: Either an image has been previously published, or it hasn't. Either it's used solely in non-disambiguation mainspace articles, or it isn't. Either its description page has its source, a copyright tag, and a rationale for the articles it's used in, or it doesn't. #8, though, and to a lesser extent the "could be created" clause of #1, is a judgment call, and interpretation of policy in deletion discussions is the role of the discussion's participants, not the closer. There wasn't any discussion whatsoever of whether this article met NFCC#8 in its deletion discussion, merely an ambivalent assertion that it didn't. It was closely followed by a question about WP:NFCC#1 (which wasn't cited) in a manner that suggested it was a restatement of the same issues; and of course it was the question in English, not the bare assertion in cryptic Wikipedia shortcut-ese, that BMK answered. We can hardly fault him for that. Relist so the issue can be argued properly. —Cryptic 19:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Listen, you folks can do whether the hell you want to do, I am -- once again -- giving up on uploading non-free files (except movie posters) to Wikipedia because you (not all of you, obviously, but many of you here in this discussion) make it almost impossible to do so, with your overly strict ultra-literal interpretation of the rules. When you do that, when you drive good editors from improving articles by behaving in that manner, you actively harm the encyclopedia, and I want no part of it, so take it all, it's once again your private domain over which you can rule and feel important. I'll return to what I do, which is to improve articles, and in that way improve the encyclopedia, and you can do what you do, which is to find every possible way to restrict images from being used, harming the encyclopedia. (The famous but probably apocryphal story has the business magnate telling the coterie of lawyers that he has on retainer not to tell him what he can do, but to find ways of doing what he wants to do. I wouldn't advise you folks to apply for that job.)

I really don't give a tinker's cuss whether you reopen this or not, Explicit's close was clearly and obviously an overstepping of the bounds of what a closing admin is expected to do, but because the same things happens day after day in file work, some of you seem to think it's just peachy. Well, it isn't. It's totally antithetical to the purpose of having an uninvolved (huh, right, as if there was an "uninvolved" admin working in the files area) admin closing a consensus discussion, and I am actually shocked that it can be seen as anything else.

Your sense of power and "responsibility" comes only because you have perverted the purpose of the non-free rules, which is first and foremost to prevent us from getting sued. That's the bottom line, which I doubt many of you understand. I think that you think that we're dealing in absolutes, when what we're actually dealing with is judgment: Will using this image get us into trouble? That's it, that's what it all boils down to, but some of you can't see the forest for the trees, so you insist on chopping them all down so you can see the forest better.

Once again, let me make it clear: what you do actively harms Wikipedia, and if you turn off your computer at the end of a busy day of deleting images with a warm glow for all the good work you did, you are lying to yourself. The obvious problems should obviously be taken care of, but it doesn't take much smarts to do that. If you have to cite sentence 4 of sub-paragraph 6, you are off the rails, and would be better off helping the encyclopedia by searching for and fixing every instance of "teh" and "amd".

Anyway, enjoy yourselves, just don't try to scratch that nagging feeling in your conscience, because it ain't going away. BMK (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

26 June 2016[edit]

25 June 2016[edit]

List of Australian middleweight boxing champions[edit]

List of Australian middleweight boxing champions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure that I believe does not fall within the limits of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. It did not look like a clear consensus had been reached nor did it appear to be non-contentious. I believe it should have been left for an admin. I commented, but did not vote, at this discussion. I have posted a notice of this discussion on the talk page of the discussion's closer. Papaursa (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • IAR Endorse, for the same reasons I gave in the List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela DRV, below. Some of the delete comments were clearly not in accordance with established policy, i.e. I think the idea of the article needs to be on Wiki, however this clearly needs allot of work before I could vote for keep. I could maybe, possibly, see how this might have been closed as NC, but there's no possible way it could have been closed as delete, so the close seems good to me, and nobody would even be questioning it if the closer owned a mop. Given some of the absurd hazing I've seen at WP:RFA, I can't blame people for not wanting to put themselves up for adminship. We need more people willing to do good work, not chasing them away because of our stupid rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - At the end of the day consensus was to Keep and personally even I would've closed as such (and I'd imagine anyone else would too), Perhaps a more lenient closer may of closed as NC however regardless it's still a keep. –Davey2010Talk 04:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Overturn Improper closure by non administrator. Non admins should stop closing these things unless it is 100% clear cut and not controversial. Tim Bosnia (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse per RoySmith. It would be ideally closed by an admin, but it was closed correctly (I could see a NC close here, but many of the delete arguments were about cleanup and so should be given less weight). Hobit (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Not the best NAC I've ever seen, but by no means the worst. If it would make the process wonks feel better I will vacate the close and reclose it myself (also as keep). Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse, unnecessary drama, clearly lack of consensus for deletion, A NC close would had been a viable option, but at the end of the day it would not change anything. Cavarrone 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Moot If Stifle wants to reclose it as keep, he can do that, and someone can bring it back here, and that would likely be endorsed as an admin did it. Admins are like black belts: you don't get the bit and then get the good judgment, you demonstrate the good judgment and then you get the bit. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jon Luvelli (closed)[edit]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela[edit]

List of Australian Ambassadors to Venezuela (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

inappropriate non admin closure under WP:NAC. This non admin should not close AfDs that are close like this. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I performed the non-admin closure and would want to know from LibStar, why is this inappropriate closure? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
this has already been discussed on your talk page. As per WP:NAC, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. This AfD does not meet that. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On my TalkPage, I too pointed out that "non-admins can perform AfD closure as Keep, Redirect, Merge and no consensus". You are reading only one part of NAC and not reading it full. I gave you a link there and I recommend you read it. There are other points after "....experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep"; you are totally ignoring that fact just to build your case. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You seem to be ignoring important parts of the pages you're citing here. You cited this in support of the view that non-admins can make no consensus closures. This says that "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination". In other words if an AfD has very little participation and has been open for some time then it's OK for a non-admin to close as no consensus for lack of participation. This was emphatically not one of those AfDs - it was an AfD with substantial participation where opinion was divided. You also ignored the fact that the same page says "No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus." This AfD was one of them. Non-admins are indeed allowed to close discussions where the result is obviously Keep, but that has nothing to do with this case. I suggest you refrain from closing discussions of this type in the future unless you manage to pass RfA. Hut 8.5 20:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Also quoting Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participantsthis AfD has clear debate . LibStar (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • IAR endorse. WP:Non-admin_closure#Pitfalls_to_avoid says, No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus., and this closure clearly violates that rule. But, it's a stupid rule. The important thing is that we get to the right endpoint, and looking at the AfD, I'm convinced we did. I can't imagine closing this any way other than NC. The only possible alternative action would have been to relist it. But, since it was already relisted once, was open for 26 days, and had attracted reasonable, policy-based arguments on both sides, from a total of eight editors, a relist was hardly necessary, and probably pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reopen so an admin can close it. This is a clear example of a discussion which shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. As the closer seems to have a pattern of questionable non-admin closures of discussions (at least two have been overturned in the last two weeks) I think we need to make it clear that this action isn't appropriate. Hut 8.5 20:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The result should be keep because a non-admin was so disruptive that there is a DRV and so much manpower used to correct a wrong. The default of disruption like this should be an automatic keep, not re-litigate. Otherwise, that just encourages non-administrator misconduct.Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
So, I'm curious. Were they overturned simply because they were NACs, or because they ended up with the wrong result? Could you provide links to them? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
They were: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Woodward, closed as Keep, subsequently overturned and reclosed as Redirect (which is more in keeping with the discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoroastrian Students' Association, closed as Keep when only one person other then the nominator had participated, overturned and relisted. I can see lots of other dubious decisions which didn't lead to overturn, e.g. closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Michel Coulon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Roy as No Consensus when they should have been left to admins in a similar situation to this one, and closes of discussions where there was substantial debate such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Avidan. Hut 8.5 22:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My comments on the cases brought up by Hut 8.5,
    • Wayne Woodward, I too had closed it with a comment "Merge / redirect to be discussed on article TalkPage". Since I was new on NAC, instead of merging / redirecting myself, I left the remark like that. Discussion on this subject can be found here. It was Bonadea & Davey2010 who pointed that out. Let me make it clear, the decision was not overturned but the procedure was corrected.
I would like to highlight this AfD discussion (exactly similar case except the closing comments) which ended in merge vote BUT the merge was not performed. This AfD was closed by RoySmith. See how the merge was finally performed.
  • Zoroastrian Students' Association. Do we count number of votes or look at the quantum or go by the merit of the case? Between 16th June and today (11 days), what did the AfD achieve apart from few relisting? At WP:AFDEQ I read "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote". You two guys are admins, please help me understand this.
  • Jean-Michel Coulon & Rudolf Roy: An honest question to both you admins. Are non-admins NOT supposed to perform NAC? In NAC, under "appropriate closures", I read the following. Quote "AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" Unquote. Where did I err?
  • Dan Avidan. Its a clear keep outcome? Why are we even discussing this closure?
Please let me have your thoughts. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As I've said above you are completely missing the point of that quotation on no consensus closures. It says that it's OK for non-admins to close as no consensus in the case where the AfD has been open for some time and has seen very limited participation. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea for non-admins to perform other kinds of no consensus closures, and the same page advises you against it earlier on. The discussions you're closing as no consensus aren't ones with limited participation, they're ones with significant participation where opinion was divided. The guideline here is WP:NACD, which says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. No consensus discussions usually fall under this, except for the special case where the AfD had limited participation. The same goes for AfDs which had substantial debate or where lots of editors disagreed with the eventual outcome.
I think it might be best if you took a step back from non-admin AfD closures. I'm sure you're trying to help but it looks like you're getting in a bit over your head. That closure which you excuse on grounds of inexperience was a mere two weeks ago. Hut 8.5 10:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist - I mean shit I know in the past I've perhaps pushed boundaries but that's a whole new level! - The AFD should've without a doubt been relisted and I also notice a growing trend in the editor making extremely questionable closes, I appreciate they wanna help but I personally think they're doing more harm than good, Anyway although technically there is no consensus at the AFD it still should've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 03:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello Davey2010, I can understand your frustration. You raised objection on a NAC performed by me (entire discussion here) and forced me to open the AfD. When I refused, you threatened me and took the matter to DRV. Here you were told by Newyorkbrad & SmokeyJoe that the NAC was proper and that the matter should not have been brought up to DRV. Not to be embarrassed further, you closed the DRV yourself citing "Endorsed - I seriously don't see the consensus in Keeping it but arguing over it is pointless and beginning to be a waste of everyones time, Best thing I can do is take it on the chin and move on!". Are you trying to get back at me for that instance? If not then rather than making opening ended and lose statements, talk on merit (like you did in case of Wayne Woodward and I immediately acknowledged). In case of Wayne Woodward also, the closure decision was NOT overturned and only the process / approach was improved. I gave a point by point explanation (read above) of the cases being discussed. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You might wanna read WP:AGF - I don't hold grudges especially over something stupid as an AFD and I find it extremely worrying you would bring that up and simply assume I'm holding somesort of grudge but to answer your question No that AFD has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments,
Your entire talkpage is full of complaints and I myself have noticed you've closed a few AFDs that should've been closed as a different outcome or relisted (My only reasoning for not bringing it up as I couldn't see the point in arguing and arguing and arguing with you),
At the end of the day however you see it your outcome WAS overturned ..... You closed it as Keep and I reclosed it as Redirect ..... thus it was overturned. –Davey2010Talk 13:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Everyone, this is taking far too much time and is not worth spending energy (atleast not mine) on this matter any further. I am not a vandal and neither do I have any COI in any of the AfD, not worth "fighting over it" and scoring brownie points. AfD nominators start getting upset when their desired AfD results are not met. In the interest to move forward; I recommend following;
    • Involved admins in this matter - please tell me the NACs (I am involved in) that should be opened and re-listed. I will gladly do it.
    • I will continue to perform NAC but ONLY clear keeps for now. Wont touch NC.
    • Since you guys are admins, I suggest you make the related policies better and not so vague that it can be interpreted either way based on convenience. It should be either Black or White - cant be grey.
Let me know if something else is needed and lets not waste time on this worthless discussion (and trust me, the outcome of NONE of the AfD are going to be any different than what I did). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The people coming out with the hierarchical bureaucratic stuff above need to show that a sysop would have closed it differently. If they can't do that they're wasting our time.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's the point - No admin would've closed it at all - It would've been relisted. –Davey2010Talk 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The competent ones would have closed it. WP:RELIST says ...relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable. I accept that there's currently a fashion for chickenhearted sysops to fill up AfD with no-consensus debates that they really ought to have closed, but all they're really doing is wasting volunteer time.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
No they wouldn't as there's alot of competent admins at AFD who relist instead of closing, I agree there's some that should be closed as such but on the whole I don't see the issue with relisting and regardless of what RELIST says relisting is always preferred over closing as No Consensus and I've even witnessed it here that Relist is preferred over closures. –Davey2010Talk 18:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
So you feel WP:RELIST gets it wrong and should be ignored (unlike what was done on this NAC) but you feel the close was wrong because it violated WP:NAC? It's hard to argue that there was a process problem with the close when your preferred close also runs afoul of our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple thoughts, in no particular order.
    There was absolutely no reason to relist this debate, and there's hardly ever good reason to relist one that had received this much participation, or even a third as much; about the only time where it might be correct to do so is if substantial evidence had been added to the article or AFD shortly before closing that would likely impact the outcome. The few times I've looked into closing afds since becoming active again I gave up in frustration after edit conflicts trying to close multiple debates with people unnecessarily relisting them, in a few cases minutes after their daily log page became eighth in line.
    There wasn't a consensus for deletion, so the outcome was correct. The folks with boldfaced "keep" arguments didn't have terribly strong, policy-based rationales for them, but the rationales of the folks with boldfaced "delete" ones were even weaker. There's perhaps weak consensus for a merger, but it's not nearly strong enough to impose based on the afd, and the last step of a merger is not deletion except in extraordinary cases (which this is not). Go work it out on the lists' talk pages.
    There isn't anything at all vague about WP:NAC's statements about no-consensus closes. It explicitly only permits them is if there's both "little or no discussion" and there's "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (and the latter should be mentioned in the closing statement). If you can misread the essay so badly as to think it's supporting other kinds of no consensus closes by non-admins instead of going out of its way to forbid them, you're probably going to miss enough nuance that you actually shouldn't be closing debates as no consensus, if at all.
    On the other hand, if you'd indicated here that you understood that WP:NAC guided you not to close but you did it anyway, I'd have had much less of a problem with that. Like RoySmith, I think that it's dumb for WP:NAC to say this. The debates it says are ok for non-admins to close aren't the ones that take up a lot of time to do. A history of only closing such doesn't help us evaluate a candidate at WP:RFA, either, since there's hardly any room for judgment in closing those; all it would show is that he would be the kind of robotic rules-bound buttonpusher admin that we're not really in desperate need of. —Cryptic 19:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse Only realistic close choice (though keep would have been a close second IMO) and a WP:TROUT to LibStar for the pointy nomination statement and generally poor behavior at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The deletion review is a review of the nature of the close. If you have issues with my behaviour take it up elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Non-admins should not be closing discussions other than the most clear-cut keeps. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Reopen per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as an admin if that helps. No other way that this could have been closed, and a relist is clearly inappropriate as there was plenty of participation and no indication that another week would have moved this any closer to a consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC).

24 June 2016[edit]

Keith Paterson[edit]

Keith Paterson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years ago the AFD discussion was closed as merge. Nothing wrong there as that was a correct reading of consensus. As far as I can tell nobody has made any attempt to merge the article until I came across it today. I noticed that in January 2015 (6 months after the merge close) he was awarded an MBE.[2][3] I think this new information might now make him notable enough for a stand alone article. Note that Black Kite, the admin who correctly closed the AFD, has since retired. The respondents at the AFD were @DGG, Ritchie333, Peminatweb, Gregkaye, Sig1068, Xymmax, Lankiveil, Whpq, and XiuBouLin: AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I would have to endorse the original close, but since nobody has done the merge, it might be best to quietly take the tag off. The AfD respected consensus and was closed within policy - I wanted a keep, but went for merge as a second choice. A search for sources reveals the MBE but not really enough sustained coverage to clearly make a difference to the original article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's OK to leave it where it is and remove the merge tag. An MBE does not show notability itself but does add enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

World Class Manufacturing:[edit]

World Class Manufacturing: (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • edit history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

1. I found, days ago, that I had lost access to the article itself and to all history and references to it, including the deletion deliberations, because (as noted by someone in authority when I raised the issue) an inadvertent colon had appeared right after the title of the article (e.g., "World-class manufacturing:"), which caused a block against access. 2. I failed to make a copy of the article and need it now to complete this request for deletion review. 3. I suspect that the final decision to delete was based on my initial, very rough and inadequate creation of the article (In my talk I thanked DGG for pointing out the flaws). However, on noticing the recommendation to delete, I searched and found and included extensive information mainly from books, plus a few published articles on the topic, World-class manufacturing. I had not dug into the hundreds of articles on the topic that have been published, thus to use them to further improve the article, but could not do so since the article was delisted. 4. If I had received timely advice about flaws in the article (e.g., dictionary, original research, synthesis faults) I could easily have made the necessary corrections. 5. I communicated with the administrator about these matters, and so, now, am taking the next step. Known and knowable (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Known and knowable: You're going to have to list those additional sources, not just assert they exist, to gain much traction here.
    It's late here and I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something looking at the deleted article; but am I correct in assessing this as a specific set of practices with an unfortunately generic name, not the "general superlative" for which DGG nominated it for deletion? —Cryptic 02:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I may have contributed to DGG's referring to the title as a "general superlative," because in my original, brief, poorly-done entry of the article, I think I started off referring to it as a generic term that ...." But, as sometimes is the case with a good title, "world-class manufacturing" may have been coined initially (in a book and in a later article by the Harvard professors) partly BECAUSE it had a familiar ring to it. It's similar in that respect to Just-in-time manufacturing, Lean manufacturing, and other terms that have become prominent (vs. obscure terms such as 5S, to which the reader might wonder, "huh?) and are in Wikipedia. But thank you for your advice--that I need to list those additional sources. I would be pleased to do that, and have extra free time now that summer is here. I'm still a Wikipedia rookie, have learned a lot in this deletion matter, and expect to do much better in the future.Known and knowable (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am adding to this talk, because I've just done a partial literature search for World-class manufacturing, the most notable finding being that an article in French with that exact title already exists in Wikipedia. It includes bits of the same material that was in my deleted article. My search, still preliminary, also yielded 26 articles, many from refereed journals, with that term in their titles; and a list of 16 "world class manufacturing professionals" that turned up from LinkedIn (e.g., Onu Kiliç, World Class Manufacturing Supervisor at Türk Traktõr). All for now.Known and knowable (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Any person can call himself world class anything if they choose. We have had probably half a million articles that described a person or product or company as world-class or cutting-edge or the equivalent. I try to remove all such phrases I come as across as puffery. There seems to be no formal qualification or certification involved. I undeleted the article for inspection: (1) the lede defines it as "“being better than almost every other company in your industry in at least one important aspect of manufacturing" which seems defined to enable any major company to make the claim, depending on how it chooses to define "almost every" and "some important aspect". (2) The central part of the article says "As for companies that have adopted the WCM term, one stands out: Italian automaker Fiat,..." whose program it goes on to describe in detail. If this isn't blatant promotionalism , nothing is. (3) the last third of the article is a summary of book chapters, but it does not seem to indicate what book. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the temporary undelete. I'll respond first to the puffery angle and then to your three points. Yes, world class can and is applied to athletes, opera singers, and whatnot. But "world-class manufacturing" has been elevated into manufacturing similar to that of lean, Toyota production system, just-in-time--along with other terms that are not popular in other contexts (e.g., cellular manufacturing, Six Sigma, total productive maintenance, 5S, multi-skilling, statistical process control, reengineering). Hayes, Wheelwright, and Clark might have hoped that the title of their 1988 book, Dynamic Manufacturing (which I cited in my weak opening sentence to the article), would have caught on instead of World-class manufacturing. But The latter term, though it can be seen as puffery, caught on as a collection point for a wide range of manufacturing concepts and methods probably because it IS a common expression.

As to your three points: (1) I fully agree that "being better that almost every other company ..." is a ridiculous statement. I included it partly because it was among the earliest writings on WCM and also that it was written by three Harvard profs who were (probably retired by now) about the most prominent academics in their field of operations management. But it was a poor way to open the article, and it should be eliminated and replaced by a better opening. (2) I'm sure Fiat/Chrysler wants the public to know about its "world-class manufacturing," in that it does have promotional value. But in my further research today I learned that they have some kind of a WCM institute that propagates their WCM concepts rather deeply into the organization, with people designated as WCM functionaries in Detroit HQ and in their plants in various countries. In my today's research I've found other companies that in the 2000s have similarly established a WCM presence in their organizations: CNH Industrial, Whirlpool China, Saint-Gobain Brazil, Maserati, Unilever Germany. In a re-write I would cite articles about these other WCM users, and downplay Fiat-Chrysler's. (3) The book is the Schonberger/1986 book that was the subject of the preceding para.; it should have been cited as such in the continuation under Factory methodologies.

In this new paragraph, I'd like to show you some evidence that world-class manufacturing has/had become much more than the common puff term. I apologize for inundating you, but here are a lot of articles, mostly unearthed today, on various aspects of WCM; quite of few of them come from refereed academic journals (I would intend to cite these kinds of sources in order to greatly improve the article):

Fast, Larry. 2016. What is world class manufacturing and how do you measure it? IndustryWeek. (Nov. 2-4); http://www.industryweek.com/measure-world-class-manufacturing (accessed 24 June 2016).

Hopper, Trevor, Jazayeri, Mostafa, Westrup, Chris. 2008. World class manufacturing and accountability: how companies and the state aspire to competitiveness. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 4/2: 97-135.

Storey, John; Harrison, Alan. 1999. Coping with world class manufacturing. Work Employment & Society, 13/4 (December): 643-644.

Gharakhani, Davood. 2011. Identify and ranking obstacles of world class manufacturing implementing by the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 1/5: 10-18.

Digalwar, A.K., Sangwan, K.S. 2007. Development and validation of performance measures for world class manufacturing practices in India. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, 6/1 (June)

COLIN, N. World-Class Manufacturing versus Strategic Trade-Offs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 1992, vol. 12, issue 4, p. 55 - 68.

W.J. Vrakking, P. Mulders. The implementation of ‘world class manufacturing’ principles in smaller industrial companies: A case study from consulting practice. Technovation, Volume 12, Issue 5, July 1992, Pages 297-308

Schonberger, R.J. 1986. The vital elements of world-class manufacturing. International Management, 41/5: 76-78.

Silva, L.C.S., et al. 2013. Cost deployment tool for technological innovation of world class manufacturing. Scientific Research, JTTs, 3/1 (January); open access paper; http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=27019 (accessed 24 June 2016).

Owens, Jeff. 2015. 10 steps to achieve world-class manufacturing maintenance practices. Plant Engineering (May 11). http://www.plantengineering.com/single-article/10-steps-to-achieve-world-class-manufacturing-maintenance-practices/16a02f4a380350e95d06083e2851aa6c.html (accessed 24 June 20160.

Jaap van Ede, Ir. 2015. Unilever’s new and integrated program for world class manufacturing. Business Improvement EU (19 October); http://www.business-improvement.eu/worldclass/Unilever_World_Class_Manufacturing_Yamashima2.php (accessed 24 June 2016).

Garberding, S. 2009. World Class Manufacturing: Chrysler Group LLC 2010-14 Business Plan; a PowerPoint presentation (Nov. 4). http://www.business-improvement.eu/worldclass/Unilever_World_Class_Manufacturing_Yamashima2.php (accessed 24 June 2016).

Sayay, B.S., Saxena, K.B.C., Ashish, K. 2001. World-class manufacturing and information age competition. Industrial Management, 43/3 (May/June).

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Jones, D. 2005. World class manufacturing: further evidence in the lean production debate. British Journal of Management, 5/s1 (December): S53-S63.

McGroarty, J. Stanton. 2013. How world class manufacturing made one plant safer, greener and more profitable. Plant Services (March 20). http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2013/04-plant-profile-chrysler-belvidere/ (accessed 24 June 2016)

De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., Monfreda, S. 2015. Improving operations performance with world class manufacturing technique: a case in automotive industry. Intech: Chapter 1. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/43383.pdf (accessed 24 June 2016) (Note: This article summarized Schonberger’s 1986 book>)

Linda C. Hendry. 1998. Applying world class manufacturing to make‐to‐order companies: problems and solutions", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 18 Iss: 11, pp.1086 - 1100

Jazayeri, Mostafa; Hopper, Trevor. 1999. Management accounting within world class manufacturing: a case study. Management Accounting Research, 10/3 (Sept.): 363-301

Lukman, S., Hafizah, A., Nurlisa Loke, A. 2014. The impact of world class manufacturing practices on company performance: a critical review. Applied Mechanics & Materials, Issue 564 (July): 727.

Institute for world class manufacturing to award 120 certifications. 2010. Quality Magazine (June 24)

Lind, Johnny. 2001. Control in world class manufacturing—a longitudinal case study. Management Accounting Research, 12/1 (March) 41-74.

Andrea Chiarini & Emidia Vagnoni. 2014. World-class Manufacturing by Fiat: Comparison with Toyota Production System from a Strategic Management, Management Accounting, Operations Management and Performance Measurement Dimension. Int’l J. of Production Research, 53/2, 2015

If I am allowed to re-do the article, I would also take a close look at the World-Class Manufacturing article that I found in the French Wikipedia.Known and knowable (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

20 June 2016[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=718160670"