Talk:Computer user satisfaction

AfD - arguments for
This article was previously Proposed for deletion, but the original author has removed the tag, as is his right. I'm therefore taking it to AfD, for the following reasons:

Tevildo 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) It's pushing the boundary of WP:OR. Specifically: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor."  The editor, admittedly, only advances his thesis indirectly, and that thesis might be summarised as "existing metrics of 'computer user satisfaction' are inadequate", but I still feel this is getting closer to the OR line than we should.
 * 2) As the article stands, it's of very marginal interest - it just discusses various scholarly metrics for 'user satisfaction', without addressing the substance of those metrics.
 * 3) No other articles link to it, and it's not, at present, categorized.
 * 4) It needs a great deal of work to bring it in line with WP:1SP. In particular, it contains large numbers of weasel words - "according to several scholars", "some scholars suggest", etc., and generally has the tone of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article.  This, admittedly, is something that could be fixed by radical editing, but I personally do not believe that it's worth it.  See 2 above.

AfD - arguments against
Michael J. MullanyMichael J. Mullany
 * 1) The supposition that the article is my own research is not supported in the light of the fact that nothing of mine appears in the article. As it so happens, I have published quite widely on the topic, and have excluded some very important new developments on the grounds that they are my research.
 * 2) The claim that the article is of very marginal interest is certainly not true in the fields of computing and electronic apparatus. With respect to user Tevildo, Are you a computer system developer?  If not, it is with little wonder you don't find this topic interesting.  However, I would venture to say, it is very interesting to many readers.
 * 3) Links: There are links to end-user and some of the authors, unless I have misunderstood what is meant by a link.
 * 4) Weasel words - the examples you give typically abound in encyclopedia articles. Try Britannica.
 * 5) Finally, may I ask what happened to the opinions of the Swiss user who supported this article? They seem to have been deleted from this page.  May I ask that they be restored, please?

Irrelevant Linking
wiki_Phantoms 01:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) While I feel that the article may have a place on Wikipedia, I do feel the original author has gone out of his way and beyond Wikipedia guidelines in adding links to the Computer user satisfaction article from other articles. These links are added along with descriptions that are irrelevant to these other articles and their subject matter (two examples would be User and End-user).

Revamping
Hey guys.

Sorry to the original creator, but due to the fact that this article has some major quality issues and reads more like an essay than a typical Wikipedia article, I am going to rewrite a substantial portion of the article myself. If anyone has anything to add, or complain about, just post below and maybe we can collaborate.

For the meantime I have salvaged the introduction into a stub. I kept the nice references at the bottom of the page because too much work went into those and they could be useful. If the original creator would like to help me rewrite this, (and I will try to contact him) that would be much appreciated. Thanks everyone. MobileSnail 05:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Revamping does not imply total destruction
While this article may require edits to meet all current Wikipedia standards, I would ask people to limit their activities to doing just that. They should not deprive readers of the contents by deleting almost the whole thing, on the grounds that they may rewrite it at some later stage. As the article stands, it certainly fulfills an informational function, and should be left largely intact until a replacement has been created. I would also point out that different people have edited this article, providing additional valuable information and that simply to delete the contents removes all their input as well. If the previous editor wants to rewrite the article with my assistance, (s)he should simply make contact with me through my talk page or by email mmullany@northtec.ac.nz. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vague guidelines and mass deletions are not required
Readers really worry very little about minor issues such as layout and so-called standards. If people such as Mobile Snail are better informed than those of us who have built this article, please get on and do the editing. A prompt to the effect that an article MAY not meet certain criteria is no guide at all. It either does or does not meet such criteria, and if it does not, please will people say exactly which criteria they feel are not being met, or just do the editing. I have thus removed the two rather vague cautions which have headed this article for quite some time.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)