Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Improvement

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Improvement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a complete mass of buzzwords, weasel words, and incomprehensible gibberish - the content of this article would be difficult to even start to work out what it's talking about, looks to be a prime example of "Management Bollockspeak". Fish ^Barking? 22:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline G11 if I'm honest. 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There, could somebody rather help me with this, instead of merely shooting the entire article down. I have requested help on this article from the very beginning (see the article's Discussion Page)to no avail. The information in this article is drawn from what companies (such as Du Pont, Heinz, Procter & Gamble etc.) are doing to improve their value chain by way of their own Integrative Improvement Systems. Just as The Toyota Production System has become 'the norm' in some companies, so Integrative Improvement has become 'the norm' in others. I would really like to add to the body of knowledge (albeit the business body of knowledge) by writing this article, and if there are sections of it which are confusing or unclear, please could you help me to improve it, rather than simply mowing it down? DN 09:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Deborah new (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DN - As I said in the reason for deletion, it would be difficult to even start to work out what the hell it's talking about. It's a prime example of what is known as "bollockspeak" - something used by company management and people who have little to say, but want to make it sound like they're doing a lot. I can't think of anywhere on here you'd get help to simplify the article or make it understandable, since I don't think many people on here could understand it. Sorry. Fish ^Barking? 11:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the borderline G11 statement, its written like a brochure or study guide for Integrative Improvement, as opposed to an encyclopedic article. It needs to be completely written, not only so that everyone can understand the article, but to write it in a more encyclopedic way (in the past...To understand this concept in its entirety...II should not be adopted with... are not encyclopedic). - SudoGhost™ 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to G11, it's a clear example of Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability. There are two sets of references cited in this article: first set (of cardinality two) consists of the only references that are actually about the subject (they are the two PDF'd PowerPoint presentations by "SVP Global Supply Chain Roddy Martin"). The remainder predate the existence of the subject ("Integrative Improvement") or don't talk about the subject at all. For example, the claim "DuPont's Production System (DPS) is one such example of an Integrative Improvement System" is purportedly supported by the transcript of an earnings teleconference that doesn't even include the substring "integ", let alone "Integrative Improvement System". Even a google search of the term produces a long list of links to websites connected to Martin or his employer (viz., http://www.etracc.net, http://www.ccint.net, linkedin profiles of his employer's henchmen, or supply chain conferences at which Martin has apparently lectured (http://supply-chain.org, http://www.enfasis.com)) -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel for your comments (by far the most helpful in terms of my trying to improve this article). For what it's worth, something I'd like to clarify: The phrase 'Integrative improvement system' is a common noun. When companies who adopt IIS speak of it, they therefore do not talk about it as an 'integrative improvement system'. Rather, they use their self-given name to their IIS (proper noun). So Du Pont call their IIS the 'DuPont Production System' (DPS), Heinz call theirs 'Heinz Global Performance System' (HGPS), Alcoa Mining call theirs 'Alcoa Business System' and Procter & Gamble calls theirs 'Integrated Work System' (IWS). All of these companies, whether they use the services of external consultancies to help them roll out their IIS, or whether they choose to roll it out as an internal effort, call their IIS by a self-given name (they do not call it 'our intergrative improvement system', which is why we would struggle to find the phrase on google).

II and IIS is an internal business effort with which companies hope to gain competitive advantage - isn't it understandable that companies would not publicise details of their internal business practices for their competitors to see? (just makes my job of citing multiple references a little more difficult). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah new (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, by your own admission, the topic "Integrative Improvement" is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia:

It is not verifiable ("companies would not publicise details of their internal business practices"). All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable.
"All of these companies, [...] call their IIS by a self-given name". If you invented the term "Integrative Improvement", it does not belong on Wikipedia, especially if nobody else uses that term. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
At this point in time anyone who knows about the subject has a significant financial Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and could not be reasonably expected to write about it from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Per WP:NPOV, "this policy is non-negotiable".
Wikipedia is not a platform for TRACC, ICC, or Roddy Martin to advertise their consulting services, "web-based Continuous Improvement System", manuals, support, and training per WP:NOTADVERTISING. You and your business associates should not be creating an article about the methodology around which you've built products and services and then repeatedly linking to it from high-traffic articles (as you did [1], [2], [3], &c.)

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This term is not supported by the references provided and does not appear to be in common use. It may be original research or an essay which are both examples of things Wikipedia is not. Or it may be simply a summary of the theories of one Roddy Martin since most of the links seem to lead to him. [4] Maybe the article could be redirected to Continuous improvement process, a phrase which does occur in some of the references. BTW I wonder about that graphic; are we sure it isn't copyrighted by somebody? --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to DN, I realize it can be very frustrating when you have worked hard on an article and then everybody is telling you it has to go. You rightly wonder why people aren't helping you to improve it instead. Here's why: the problem is not with the way the article is written (in spite of some of the snide comments above); it's with the topic itself. Even you seem to say that this particular phrase is not in general use, and if it isn't, there can't be an article here about it. Wikipedia is not the place for essays or for original analysis; this is an encyclopedia and we only have articles about things or concepts that have received significant outside sourcing. If this article does get deleted, you might consider whether some of the things you wanted to say could be added to the existing article Continuous improvement process. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly. Oh, Ghod, where to begin? ....a holistic, ongoing and sustainable business approach which builds on the concept of Continuous Improvement. The goal of applying II is for a company to achieve Best in Class/World Class operations in their given industry. Now, let's see, we have stated a lofty goal, stated in the rosiest but vaguest possible terms, and a promise to Make Money Fast. This is what the Britons call complete bollocks; Americans have a more rustic word for it. A deliberately uninformative article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.