Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design for X Methodologies

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. Yanksox 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design for X Methodologies

This article appears to describe an obscure engineering term. Despite being in existence for nearly a year, its only inbound links are from lists of articles needing attention. I'm not an engineer, so I may be a poor judge of this topic's importance (the term gets only 35 google hits, for what it's worth), but I don't think that it's encyclopedic NatusRoma | Talk 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't quite get what this article is about... whatever it is, it needs to be renamed and rewritten, which is called a delete. Wickethewok 07:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename - Now that someone has explained what it is. Wickethewok 00:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, not really. DarthVader 08:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is awkwardly named and is in need of further improvements, but its topic is not obscure. There are a bunch of design methodologies: Design for Assembly, Design for Changeover, Design for Manufacture (or Design for Service), and many more, generically referred to as "Design for X". The searchterm "Design for X" gets about 37,500 hits. For a much clearer text, see e.g. Design for X on the Better Product Design website. --Lambiam^Talk 08:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but needs a serious rewrite. I myself considered nominating this article for deletion, but after google turned up some valid results, I decided against it. Although this article does need a make over, as except subject experts no one can make much out of it. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 11:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Terence Ong 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Give it time... disk space is cheap, human effort isn't. Bryce 14:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs cleanup. Concept appears to be valid. Paddles 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Crazynas 06:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. although slightly biased as I am the inital author, I think the article has a valid place in the engineering section. However, I agree with NatusRoma that a title change should be considered. I suggest "Design for X" inline with other articles on Wikipedia such as Design for Six Sigma. Hopefully, this satisfies the part of the human population who evaluate value in terms of google hits. ;-) Michael Reik 19:34, 29 May 2006 (GMT)
• Keep. In the past I have practiced Design for Yield (maximizing the likelihood that integrated circuits work when first tested) and Design for Test (designing integrated circuits to minimize flaws that are not revealed during testing). I had not heard the phrase "Design for X" before but it instantly made sense once I began to read the article. Gerry Ashton 23:12, 30 May 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.