Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There already exists a [rather shoddy] page for quality in the business sense (see Quality_(pragmatics)). This page, however, contains nothing of value and is largely a collection of original research. Ironically, this page does not live up to Wikipedia's quality standards. ← Spidern  →  18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  ←  Spidern  →  18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   --  ←  Spidern  →  18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  ←  Spidern  →  18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to quality. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace with Quality (disambiguation) per Clarityfiend. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to or replacement by Quality (disambiguation), as per my suggestion on the talk page. Merge anything useful to Quality (pragmatics). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly point me towards this "anything useful"? I can find nothing worth salvaging. ←  Spidern  →  03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * deletion is the last resort of the desperate. let's this once try not be desperate but instead come to the realization that the suggested merge between "quality" and "quality (pragmatics)" would indeed lead to the desired lemma about quality in the common sense and its outgrowth in business language (which is closer to the common sense understanding than to the philosophical basis). this would definitely help a lot. btw: i am willing to jump into action. -- Kku (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for preserving good material, the problem is that I can't find much worth keeping there. The section, "Variations of a business definition" is not definitive and is one interpretation of what should be included on the page (the fact that it's a numbered list doesn't help). "Improvement of quality" is once again a selection of terms deemed to be important and not a definitive list. "Market sector perspectives" contains one inline citation (which isn't even formatted optimally, see  ), and reads like an opinion piece. I've got nothing against improving either of the quality articles, but this page just doesn't strike me as adding much value (quality) to the encyclopedia. If you could address any of those issues, then please do.  ←  Spidern  →  14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete before there is a stable merged article combining Quality and Quality (pragmatics). The list of variations in definition is worth keeping and improving.  --  Iterator12n   Talk  20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page as it stands is terrible, but it should be rewritten and improved, not deleted.  Quality is a highly important topic.  Yes, it's difficult to write a good page about it but that doesn't mean we should delete the page.  We should selectively delete all the bad material from the page and go from there.  Cazort (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the page and attempted to find anything worth preserving, but to no avail. Can you point me in the direction of exactly which content you wish to preserve? Because the term "Quality" has such a broad usage, the page should not be limited to one mode of usage, especially when that mode of usage already has an article about it. ←  Spidern  →  13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing to keep in mind is that we can still merge material from the old Quality article's history if we change to a redirect or disambiguation. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, have you found any good revisions with content worth salvaging? From what I can tell the very first revision seems to be in the context of business. ←  Spidern  →  14:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP, This page was especially helpful to someone studying for the six sigma exam. It contains a compiliation of terms and definitions that I have not found elsewhere in a compact format.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjames7118 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: This user only has one edit, which is on this particular AfD. ←  Spidern  →  13:48, 9 February 2009 (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.