Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical process control


 * 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 keep. Physchim62 (talk&middot;RfA) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistical process control
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't understand why this was listed for deletion? --Qirex 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reason as Qirex. --GraemeL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic.  --A D Monroe III 18:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons mentioned. chowells 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep obviously encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe this AfD is a joke? keep, keep, keep. --Condorman 05:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. As for the why, the guy who slapped the AfD template on the article wrote on the talk page
 * "Wordy, unsourced, no good examples. I'm still not sure how the article even relates to the title. What do statistics have to do with it? What sort of process is being controlled? Is there a thing called "process control"? Who says you can control a process? Or that you can't? This article stinks. I'd delete it if it was up to me."
 * I agree with the general sentiment of these remarks, but the article (in particular, the first paragraph) does have some information. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, many Google hits, with the first one pointing to a "A bibliography on Statistical Process Control compiled by the NASA Headquarters Library." I removed all but the first paragraph, which in my opinion is the only one that contains information, and added a stub notice. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Although the subject is misnamed, it is the standard business term.  -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm in a class about this in college right now, I'm pretty sure it's valid. Bloodshedder 03:18, 25 October 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.