Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed manufacturing

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed manufacturing

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The is a work of synthesis not directly supported by the sourcing. The sourcing supports associated aspects and they are bought together in this work. Created by a SPA who's purpose appears to be to introduce research by the team behind RecycleBot into Wikipedia, in this case refs 7 and 10. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I entirely understand the justification for deleting the article. You claim that it is an original synthesis (i.e. it "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", to quote the wording on WP:NOR), but you do not specify what claim is made by the article that is not justified by its source, nor why this claim could not simply be removed. I also fail to understand the relevance of the purpose of the page's creator in creating the article. Is there a reason the links should not be included in the article? The line between a SPA and an editor contributing their knowledge on a single topic is a fine one; how have you determined which this case is? JulesH (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the ten references used is about distributed manufacturing, the below mentioned book. The other nine are used to verify things not directly related to distributed manufacturin. The bringing together these 9 unrelated topics into an article about something those references are not about is where it synthesis is. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distributed manufacturing is a highly notable topic, with '"Distributed manufacturing" -wikipedia' generating over 6,300 hits in GScholar and and over 7,600 results in GBooks. There are entire books devoted to the topic, such as Distributed Manufacturing: Paradigm, Concepts, Solutions and Examples, and survey articles, such as Leitão, Paulo. "Agent-based distributed manufacturing control: A state-of-the-art survey." Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 22, no. 7 (2009): 979-991.. General notability guidelines, per WP:GNG are more than satisfied. Problems with synthesis or a non-neutral point of view are generally surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, especially in a short article like this. Even if the article is deemed hopeless and WP:TNT applies, the notability of the topic means we should stubify, not delete. A highly notable topic, along with either surmountable problems, or at worst, stubification, suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark above. I saw the RecycleBot AfD, and while this is a dumping ground for their work now that the other articles are gone, it is (unfortunately, I must say) a notable enough topic to keep. Ansh666 03:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- note: possibly Redirect to one of the pages in the first sentence (Craft production or Cottage industry) for now? Ansh666 09:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not a "needs improvement tag, yet it appears that is the issue here. This topic is trivially cited in the press and research papers. It appears to be an emerging field that I suspect will only grow more NOTE as time goes on. Duff, perhaps you can explain (a) why you think this is SYN, and (b) why you believe the proper solution is to delete and not fix? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark viking. Distributed manufacturing is a well established concept in engineering and manufacturing circles, with plenty of citeable high quality sources available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2013 (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.