Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer user satisfaction


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Petros471 20:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Computer user satisfaction
OR, non-notable, needs major editing. See Talk:Computer user satisfaction for more detailed arguments. Tevildo 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thinking about it, I might as well put the detailed argument here instead.

Tevildo 21:05, 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.
 * Keep. OK, it's not among Wikipedia's best articles on many counts, but it's not OR and it's obviously a genuine research subject, and thus encyclopedic. No other objections have been raised that are within AfD's ambit; all other problems must be addressed by cleanup work. Sandstein 21:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and arguments. --Crossmr 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's hard to read, sounds like an article that summarizes (so it isn't OR) rather than a good encyclopedia entry. But as per Sandstein, it's an important topic but, as per Tevildo, there's a lot wrong with it: too much detail and indirectness, too little highlighting of the substance. But I still think it should stand, preferably to be pared down and worked on. Inter lingua  talk 00:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, reads like an essay and OR. Kimchi.sg 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Better-referenced than 99.99% of our articles. I agree it needs clarification and general cleanup though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic topic. &mdash; 199 19:44, 15 June 2006 (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.