Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English system of 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

English system of manufacturing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a well established specific term, poorly sourced, used only as a description in an inappropriately specific context only for contrast with the topic of another article. There is no set phrase "English system of manufacturing", or anything like one system; even as a normal combination of common words, Google returns very few links (<100), which seem to be clones of four sources in different contexts, some in Japanese and Korean, and just a couple of scholarly articles which happen to use the phrase, but nothing to a point that warrants notability. At a guess, this article was created by someone who had learnt about the "American method of manufacturing" from a textbook and wanted to create an analogous article for contrast - but given that England began the Industrial Revolution, it seems strange to try and push this negative connotation on it Harsimaja (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the American system of manufacturing is a well accepted term. The author is attempting to show that it had an English precursor, but he fails.  However, the whole edifice seems to sit on a very slender basis.  The mechanisation of blockmaking for the Navy at Portsmouth is an important step in the origins of machine tools.  However if there was an "English system", it was in the division of labour, so that each worker concentrated on a small part of the process.  This is to be found for example in the Birmingham toy and gun trades.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I did find the term in use in several books,  where it was used in a kind of general sense. I didn't get the feeling that this is a widely used or understood term. None of the citations I found support the thesis of this article, which seems to be that because an interchangeable-parts system was used briefly in one English shipyard, the notion of interchangeable parts "originated in England." The sources do not support such a connection or origin; rather, they seem to suggest that arms manufacturing along with a possible connection with France were responsible for the development of the (universally known as) American system of manufacturing. This article reads rather like the "invented in Russia first" claims that used to come out of the old Soviet Union. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2015 (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.