Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1S (methodology)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1S (methodology)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

With no matches on Google News and nothing relevant in Google search, this appears to be not actually in use and should be removed as a neologism. Previously raised as a PROD but reverted without discussion; consequently this AFD is an opportunity for discussion. Ash (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - completely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and redirect to 5S (methodology) where it is already mentioned. Not enough content for it's own page, and certainly not without references.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What verifiable content would you merge? Would you merge The principle way to remember it is "Shit:Everywhere". 1S.?  The "methodology" is completely unverifiable and likely a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit is the extent of the merge that could be done. If it is decided that 1S (methodolgy) is unverifiable, then the section should be cut from the 5S article.  Keeping the 1S redirect doesn't hurt.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the issues of discussion is verifiability as the nominator found no sourcing, the article provides no sourcing, and I have found no sourcing. Nor does it appear that you have been able to find any sourcing.  Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy.  Merging unverifiable material is not a desirable outcome. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The author of this page inserted the 1S content into the 5S article .  That user was notified, see User talk:Ioooi1978.  I am now presuming that this 1S thing was made up.  If it does turn out to be real, then a redirect would be suitable.  delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cut mention of 1S from the 5S article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a neologism at best;  unable to find sources to verify the term.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 04:46, 23 August 2009 (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.