Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QA/QC (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was   keep. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

QA/QC
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-sensical disambiguation ViperSnake151   Talk  14:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Functionally, this is no different from a disambiguation page titled Paris/Berlin or Pizza/Hamburger, listing, respectively, Paris and Berlin or Pizza and Hamburger. bd2412  T 18:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those examples are poor. Better examples would be AC/DC, AD/BC, RA/Dec... Warden (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If you click on the book and scholar search links above, you will see that this abbreviation gets a reasonable amount of usage in sources such as Strategies for the development of reliable QA/QC methods when working with mass spectrometry-based chemosensory systems. It should therefore remain as a blue link to assist navigation and, as there are two equally valid targets, the current approach seems fine.  Note that it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Warden (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, in part based on Ignore all rules. This article is only grouped as a disambiguation for lack of a better classification. It behaves like a disambiguation article, in that it points the user to Wikipedia articles. Searching "QA/QC" yields a few million search results, where this page is the top search item, so it would be a loss to remove this article. + m t  22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is something of a term of art. It would be nice if one or both articles Quality assurance/Quality control could describe the combined/contrasted functions with the initialism. It might be worth adding Industrial forensics. Also take a look at internal search results to see how frequently the combined initialism is used in articles. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, at first glance silly and a dictdef rather than dab page, but is a common term so useful and we have a wiktionary link too. TWODABs no primary topic. A simple 50:50 split. None of the examples above are similar, and neither is AM/PM. Agree with Bkonrad third may be useful. Widefox ; talk 20:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful dab, nonsense nom with so many g-hits showing its common usage. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Keep: If it was an abbreviation for a topic covered in Wikipedia it would be a redirect, with no problem; it happens to be an abbreviation for a pair of topics (and heavily used, as ghits show), so this article is a sort of forked redirect, to point readers to the two articles on topics to which it refers. Useful. Nothing to gain in deleting it. WP:IAR if necessary. Pam  D  16:48, 4 October 2013 (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.