The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Spare parts management. We have two choices, rework the article to be about spare parts or to rename. Given that much of this is about the management process as evidenced by the content and categories, a rename seems to be the most appropriate. If there is sufficient content for an article on spare parts, it can be created.

Spare parts → Spare Parts Management — - [Apart from a short definition of a spare part the remainder of this article is on spare parts management.] Toddler3 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - fix the contents, not the name. Knepflerle (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree - 90% is on management, fixing the content would effectively mean: nihilate the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.77.225 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to spare part, apart from the grammatically incorrect name (i.e. the all-caps of a common noun), this is essentially deleting an article on an important topic. The good solution here is to write other things about spare parts than just management, and move the management section to a separate article, spare part management. On second though, the article in questions should be located at spare part because articles should be located at the singular term. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why do you want To Move It To A Capitalized Form? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support. I'm not convinced that spare parts, in and of themselves, are a suitably encyclopaediac topic - does this part of the article have any potential to be more than a dicdef? I don't agree with the proposed title, though - I would suggest Spares management, but, in any case, "management" should be lower-case. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to say, but this is about as bad as articles get on Wikipeida. I'm no engineer, but at the top of my head I would think this article could contain production methods (on-the-fly vs. pre-manufacturerd and custom vs. standardized parts), the management (inventory, ordering, logistics, optimal stock etc), the spare parts industry (some industries make their margins on spare parts, because they need to be original, while other industries spare parts can be generically manufactured), there is also the issue of patents, trade secrets, copyright and other issues that may influence who can manufacture spare parts, there is the question, during product design, if a modular approach should be followed, with might give modular spare parts that can be used on an array of products, or the choice to design a product with or without replaceable parts (that could lead to the issue of if one component brakes, the item must be discarded, and there could then be some ethical to point out here). I am sure someone who actually knew something about the matter could think up many other issues to add too. So don't be to hasty to think that a huge field of expertise cannot be more than a mere dicdef. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid point, but we already have articles on Production methods, form, fit and function, modular design, intellectual property rights etc. Can _spare parts_ as such be split off from those topics? I personally don't think so. Tevildo (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.