Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual manufacturing network

Virtual manufacturing network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, and has no sources 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I withdraw my nomination. The discussion below has convinced me that the topic is notable enough, but just requires more sources. Commenters have provided a few such sources, which I will incorporate in the article. I will also slightly rewrite the article to at least a proper "stub" state, so that it doesn't require deletion.7804j (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Technology, and Computing. 7804j (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a AI generated article.--FreaksIn 18:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a decade-old article, BTW, so not AI.

It's a real term, but it's not a real article. It says nothing more than a WP:DICDEF and the only source isn't much better. There's potentially scope for writing a useful article here, but this isn't one. No objection to anyone who wants to do that, but otherwise I think we're better without. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; with the caveat that I would rather it go to a draft named “Virtual manufacturing” where it could be a sub-topic (because as seen 1, 2, 3, and 4 virtual manufacturing should have notability and this probably does have a place as a sub-topic. If this isn’t possible for technical reasons Im also happy to just copy across content. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, I'm seeing plenty of substantive hits in Google Scholar. Editorially, I agree with Emily.Owl that we should probably move this page to Virtual manufacturing and add this as a subsection, or we should create Virtual manufacturing and merge this page to it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we don't have a page on virtual manufacturing I'd support a merge to dynamic manufacturing network instead. Also a virtual manufacturing network is a distinct subset of virtual manufacturing: it's an established network that supports virtual manufacturing, rather than the need to set up ad hoc relationships for the virtual manufacture of each process, as required. Virtual manufacturing is nearly as old as Adam Smith's pin factory; but the idea of a network for it relies on modern techniques in IT: data representation, open standards, metadata, formal quality assurance, licensing of concepts and microcharging. It needs to be a low friction network if it's to work. Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing, but not dynamic manufacturing or a network for it. Particular families specialised in particular tasks, such as gear cutting or spring making, but each family was engaged (trapped?) into long-term specialised relations to carry on that one process, usually for one client, long-term.

A virtual manufacturing network today allows flexibility between both client and contractor. The work is fungible, it can be allocated and re-allocated dynamically as needed or convenient. The client doesn't care which contractor carries it out and this can change between quite small batches. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a stub for Virtual manufacturing since everyone agrees this is a topic that's notable.

If we agree that "Virtual Manufacturing network" is a thing, I would prefer keeping the article as a dedicated page rather than merging it into some other article. But I'm struggling to find enough relevant sources for it. It seems to me like, even if merged, we would need more than the current one source. If this group finds sources for VMN, I can volunteer to incorporate them into the existing page and restructure the stub as needed (so that we can avoid a deletion) 7804j (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and contribute to articles when I have the time. In the mean time here are sources that should related directly to VMNs: in aerospace, more generally. Thanks for volunteering to incorporate sources, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 05:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might be a candidate where the article could be improved. Draftify is also an OK outcome for now. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ virtual manufacturing on the basis of missing the point so badly as to be indistinguishable from LLM output (more like Gooogle AI or ChatGPT rather than even Grok). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is for the Virtual Manufacturing Network page, not virtual manufacturing.

On Virtual Manufacturing: it seems to me that your definition (from your above comment) doesn't match the definition I could find on internet. E.g., you say "Watchmakers in the East End of London centuries ago had virtual manufacturing". How would virtual manufacturing work before the invention of computers? Could you share a source that matches this definition? 7804j (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you build an article purely by 30 seconds Googling and a handful of post-~~2020~~2015 sources about 'Industry 4.0', don't be surprised if it omits any mentions from Industry 1.0, Industry 2.0 or Industry 3.0. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to sources such as this one, which defines Virtual Manufacturing as "a computer-based technology for defining, simulating, and visualizing the manufacturing process early in the design stage, allowing for the detection and resolution of manufacturing-related issues as well as estimation of manufacturing costs and time." They aren't post-2020 sources.

Regardless, this seems outside the scope of this deletion discussion since this is for a different page 7804j (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination has been withdrawn, but there are valid Delete and Draftify views here, so this can't be speedy-kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]