Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOC, Lean, Six Sigma 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

TOC, Lean, Six Sigma Methodology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable theory supported only by literature written by the author of the theory. The article makes no attempt to explain the theory - just that it is effective. Explaining the theory in the article would require an amount of detail inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Thus, the article basically serves as a promotion for a non-notable theory - a form of non-commercial spam. Nposs 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, vehemently, like the Holy Vehm would do. This is "referenced" crypto-spam, complete bollocks, and not written in plain English. Prose like this:
 * The results were statistically analyzed for significance between the three methodologies. Lean and Six Sigma were identified as viable continuous improvement methodologies. The success of each methodology was determined by their aggregate contribution to verifiable financial savings as a result of process improvement projects. These savings were validated with the organization plant controllers and senior management.
 * is a crime against humanity. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - unreferenced, and highly suspect spam. --Haemo 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no referenced assertion of notability, probably OR as well. Ac@osr 17:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - useful information for CPI users —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.98.230 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2007 (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.