Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Toyota Way (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. There is consensus against deletion; the arguments for deletion are relatively weak in that they do not discuss the topic's coverage in reliable sources. But there's not clear consensus to keep as a standalone article either; a plausible merger proposal has been made but not really pursued here. It can be followed up on the article talk page.  Sandstein  05:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The Toyota Way
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is essentially an ad for Toyota. If anything, it should be merged into an existing article, if it even belongs there at all. Too many primary sources. This was previously deleted but recreated; I'm neutral on potentially salting the page as well. Fails the GNG.InvadingInvader (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Japan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Liker book is a standard for business management and marketing classes, so it at least has WP:N for that, and it defines what has worked for a very successful company and how others can apply that knowledge, not just serving as an infomercial for Toyota. And no, an article that's been up for sixteen years doesn't need salting.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it have to have its own article though? The explanation you provided does sound like something trying to be marketed to me. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Telling you a book is used in colleges isn't marketing, it's simply stating its common use as a tool in business management. Not everything is advertising, and this isn't.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Article needs fixing but is definitely fixable. I can see how the lead is off-putting; it dives straight into the content rather than providing context. But that's a reason to improve, not delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are a significant number of reliable sources available. I don't have a strong opinion about the article, but I tried to take a first stab at improving it by reducing the corporate jargon and generalizing the context. Dekimasu よ! 04:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not shorten it down and merge it into another Toyota-related article? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more about business administration than about Toyota itself. What makes it notable is the outside attention to it and the attempts to teach it as a style of management that can be applied to other contexts. It does seem to have attracted editors engaged in marketing it as well. Dekimasu よ! 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It apparently passes WP:GNG, but I don't think that's enough for this to warrant its own Wikipedia. It's mainly (outdated) promotional spam for working at Toyota. At most I think this should just be a mention within a related article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This subject should not have its own article. It was a management strategy that was promoted by the company. It is no longer applicable and it would be better to mention it in the History of Toyota article. This subject is related to the corporation, yet its weak notability is indicated that it is not even listed in the "Template:Toyota Motor Corporation" which is a collection of everything Toyota that includes distant topics such as Toyota flowers developed for gardens at its factory. Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs more work, but should not be deleted. There is a reason this page has had nearly 1 million pageviews since it was first created. Ironically, despite its name, the subject has become much, much bigger than the company itself. As Mrschimpf was saying, the Toyota Way, the Toyota Production System, and lean manufacturing have all become a standard part of the MBA syllabus. The article needs to be fixed to clearly state where it fits within the academic and business management debates, as the very concept of the "Toyota Way" continues to be tested, challenged, and applied across multiple companies, industries, and countries. (And yes, a neutral encyclopedic entry needs to go beyond just the Liker book and should take a balanced view from other perspectives.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the possibility of a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Toyota Production System (especially the criticism section). This clearly and obviously passes WP:GNG, and it is hard to call the article "an ad for Toyota" when a significant portion of the article discusses its failures. There are also more sources extant -- a two-minute Google search turned up [//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104095238 this NPR piece] and [//link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0364-1_9 this paper, which cites many other papers]. Both are independent and critical in nature. The thing is, though, that I'm not sure whether there is a meaningful distinction between this and TPS; a lot of the sources seem to use the two interchangeably. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Either keep this article with improved citations, or merge into another related article. Toyota Production System is the most logical article to accept the merge, although this article would be a good fit for the Lean manufacturing article due to Toyota's reputation in this field. Note that "lean manufacturing toyota" is one of the first suggestions when searching "lean manufacturing" in Google. Tonedebone (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought of this too, but if you start reviewing the academic literature, it turns out the two concepts – Toyota Production System (TPS) and the Toyota Way – are interrelated, but also separate. Someone with background in business management or organizational theory needs to fix this, so it's clear across the three pages (also with lean manufacturing). The fixes need to be part of a bigger project. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We can have articles be on two related concepts. If both eventually become too big, we can split them later. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. There's an entire independent book on this topic from a reliable academic publisher and a feature article in The New York Times among other significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2022 (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.