Deletion of Integrative Improvement

Comment: strongly.  Oh, Ghod, where to begin?  ''....a holistic, ongoing and sustainable business approach which builds on the concept of Continuous Improvement. The goal of applying II is for a company to achieve Best in Class/World Class operations in their given industry.'' Now, let's see, we have stated a lofty goal, stated in the rosiest but vaguest possible terms, and a promise to Make Money Fast.  This is what the Britons call |complete bollocks; Americans have a more
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:CB)

Comment: borderline #G11|G11 if I'm honest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: In addition to #G11|G11, it's a clear example of Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability.  There are two sets of references cited in this article:  first set (of cardinality two) consists of the only references that are actually about the subject (they are the two PDF'd PowerPoint presentations by "SVP Global Supply Chain Roddy Martin").  The remainder predate the existence of the subject ("Integrative Improvement") or don't talk about the subject at all.  For example, the claim "DuPont's Production System (DPS) is one such example of an Integrative Improvement System" is purportedly supported by http://seekingalpha.com/article/232477-ei-dupont-ceo-discusses-q3-2010-results-earnings-call-transcript the transcript of an earnings teleconference that doesn't even include the substring "integ", let alone "Integrative Improvement System".  Even a google search of the term produces a long list of links to websites connected to Martin or his employer (viz., http://www.etracc.net, http://www.ccint.net, linkedin profiles of his employer's henchmen, or supply chain conferences at which Martin has apparently lectured (http://supply-chain.org, http://www.enfasis.com
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: This term is not supported by the references provided and does not appear to be in common use. It may be |original research or an |essay which are both examples of |things Wikipedia is not. Or it may be simply a summary of the theories of one Roddy Martin since most of the links seem to lead to him. http://www.enfasis.com/Presentaciones/LS/Summit/RoddyMartin.pdf Maybe the article could be '''redirected''' to Continuous improvement process, a phrase which does occur in some of the references. BTW I wonder about that graphic; are we sure it isn't copyrighted by somebody
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ESSAY||WP:NOT)