Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labor and material productivity

:{{la|Labor and material productivity}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Labor_and_material_productivity Stats])

:({{Find sources|Labor and material productivity}})

It is a little difficult to understand exactly what this article is about, but it appears to consist entirely of original research - calculations based on the sources, rather than calculations published in sources. ("These norms are calculated and referred from below mentioned reliable sources.") It has been tagged for various issues since 2010 and 2011. I just removed a paragraph that had been stating since 2009 that "Further details [...] are being calculated and will be posted here very soon." bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete per nom, and per the fact that the source of original research hasn't been seen on Wikipedia since 2009. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep While I agree this is a pretty shoddy article, I disagree with the notion that straightforward calculations are "original research." Doing arithmetic is not much different from paraphrasing text, inasmuch as both involve drawing immediate non-controversial conclusions from the sources. TL/DR: WP:CALC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete/userfy? While these may be "straightforward calculations" they are unsourced. If you paraphrase text, you cite the original text. There are some "references" here but there is no link between the references and the data. I don't know this topic, so I am willing to believe that this is interesting work that has been done. But it is original research. Note that throughout the life of this article, starting with its inception in October, 2010, it has be tagged as "unencyclopedic" "no footnotes/refimprove" "deadend." As data it may be ok, but it is not an encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

:*{{ping|LaMona}} The references appear to contain the relevant information. Some of the paper sources are now online, like this one: [http://cpwd.gov.in/deputation/ar2-final.pdf]. From this source it's apparent that this is not original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::*Not quite apparent. It is 650-page pdf file and as there are no foot notes in the article I have no idea what is referenced by that particular document. Could you give us a page number in the pdf? --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

:: Sammy1339 I don't think that anyone is questioning that the information comes from somewhere. All information comes from somewhere. What is being questioned is if this article cites existing information, or is new information that did not previously exist elsewhere. The statement about "simple calculations" indicated to me that the article's figures are not quotes but are the results of calculations done on other material. What isn't clear, therefore, is the relationship between these figures and the cited references. To give an example, look at United_States_elections,_2006. There are large tables there, and maps. Although the tables themselves may not be copied exactly from the source (they have been re-formatted for WP), that exact data should be available at the source cited. And there is a source cited for each set of information. The maps link to an article with sourced tables that contain the data. (This could be more transparent, IMO, but the data is there.) In the case of this article, though, there are four references and it isn't clear which data points come from which reference. I could imagine, say, that if each of the columns in this article comes from a particular source, then the column header could be linked to the source. If, however, the information in the table cannot be located in one of the sources, but is new information derived from data in the sources, then it is original research. If nothing else, a description of how the data was derived, and which data points came from which reference, in a paragraph describing the table, would be welcome. LaMona (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

::: Well, no, not all information comes from somewhere. I think you can find things in the references easily enough by opening up the references and using ctrl+F. The way the references are cited in this article is more or less standard for many publications (such as articles in Scholarpedia and many traditional encyclopedias), and it was written in a time when not every line on Wikipedia had "citation needed". To delete an article, you have to provide evidence that the sources aren't there, not just that the citations are not in proper order. I honestly don't want to take on the job of fixing the latter issue, as the subject of the article is of no interest to me, but I think it's clear that it passes WP:V and that a willing editor could produce proper citations from the references already provided. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2014 (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.