Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design methods


 * 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. IMHO this looks like a cleanup candidate, not a deletion candidate.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Design methods
"...holistic solutions to improve the lives of people...", reads like a promotion for a fringe cult. Only contributor is User:Design methods; this was originally a user page, but it doesn't fit there either. Delete Owen&times; &#9742;  18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly suffers from POV and some inappropriate content, such as the contact me part, but the concept that there is an art/science to design and hence methods is certainly appropriate. Since this primarily focuses on the work of John Christopher Jones it may be more appropriate to move it an article of that name and reorg it to be more consistent with standards J E Bailey 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This document is about design methods and starts with John Christopher Jones. It should not be deleted as it is an important topic of discussion. It is not "cult" or "partisan", but is a valid area to articulate. As for the e-mail, I have taken it down as it seems as if it is culturally not in keeping with Wikipedia User:design_methods Thank you for the commentary. If you go to design methods, it has been expanded to discuss the development of design research and design studies as a response to the work of the original group from design methods. I disagree that the content should be broken up, and give this a chance. This page is not promoting any specific group, but trying to demonstrate the development of design methods. Owen and HappyCamper, if you would let me know what to improve to bring it in line with what your vision of Wikipedia is, I would appreciate it. User:design_methods
 * This is your second vote here. Please limit yourself to one vote per AfD. If you wish to edit your previous comment, feel free to do so, but stuffing the ballot won't get you anywhere. Owen&times; &#9742;  03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC) ( retracted after user fixed double vote. Owen&times;  &#9742;  04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Owen. I am all ears on how to improve Wikipedia. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Design methods
 * Firstly, the article is missing a definition. What is "Design methods"? An organization? An idea? A methodology? Check out other articles here to see examples of how a defining paragraph should look like, or read WP:MOS. Secondly, and more importantly, I find it amazing that a 3,000-word article about something that existed for 40 years wouldn't have a single bit of criticism. This is exactly what differentiates an encyclopedic entry from a sales pitch. (Design Methods 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Thank you Owen for the comments. I will clarify the definition of design methods and make sure it is known as a definition. I am all open for criticism, but also believe that the criticism should be followed by fixes, either by others (which I have invited others to do so) or by generalists who improve syntax. I think we all want to avoid terms like "fringe cult". Our collective goal should be to create a dynamic resource and assume contributors are trying to do the right thing and be specific on how to improve the content. Owen&times;  &#9742;
 * You're still avoiding the issue. I wasn't talking about criticism of your article; I was talking about criticism of John Christopher Jones and his movement/cult/whatever it is (you still haven't defined it). If you tell us that in 40 years he and his ideas haven't received any criticism, then you've proven my claims. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you think I am avoiding the issue. Please read the revised introduction. John Christopher Jones is not the issue as design methods is much larger than one person. He was an important founder of the idea of design methods and he did receive a share of criticism. If you read down the article, I have tried to discuss how design methods expanded and changed. Design methods
 * Keep. Editor is very new to Wikipedia; article needs some work but is not deletion material. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Design methods is a unique addition to Wikipedia. Not only does it establish a visible place for this important and evolving topic, it also contributes to the growing thought and demonstration of design as a critical discipline in developing meaningful products and services. Business concepts such as "innovation fulcrum" and "product life-cycle management" directly connect to the use of Design methods by current companies for both competitive advantage and human capital. And this practice is becoming more pervasive as the forces of economy and empathy converge. Design methods is completely relevant to the present-day realities of our consumer-driven environment. User:Design_Methods_Advocate, 18 December 2005
 * The above is user's first edit ever. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is very misleading - it is at best an essay on a particular interpretation of design methods in the Western world. I might even suggest that we merge relevant portions of the article into others, but I lack the time to do so. Although generally well written, it is subtlely promoting a particular group formed in 1962. If the content is kept, it should be renamed to something appropriate which specifically highlights this. --HappyCamper 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How does Design Methods prove itself to be taken off the "delete" list? (Design Methods 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
 * I'll answer this question on your talk page. --HappyCamper 00:01, 23 December 2005 (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.