Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Sigma

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

• Speedy Keep Useful find - no reason for deletion. --Etrigan 0027, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I just put this notice on the page. DJ Clayworth 19:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I thought it was a very helpful article when I found this term in a job posting! 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an absolutely crucial article and must be kept under all curcumstances!!! 6 December 2005
• Keep. Clearly a widespread phenomenon that affects many thousands of people. Bbpen 17:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work but it helped already by explaining the basics. --VanPeel 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. I've tried explaining this on the user page, but I obviously failed to persuade the anon. K1Bond007 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - a misunderstood (probably not bad-faith) nomination from an anonymous user. ESkog | ^Talk 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, obviously. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Bbpen. Nominator doesn't seem to really get the process--I'd like to hear his/her reason better explained, but they seem to come down to IP issues, which I don't think apply. rodii 21:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. I hear about it daily in my engineering work place. --ConradKilroy 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well-known term in management.Capitalistroadster 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, well known.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This provides good reference to history of 6Sigma. Horde, 07 December 2005
• Keep. User who put AfD notice on page (NOT DJ Clayworth who is just following through here) objects on basis that (1) Six Sigma is a trademark of Motorola Inc. (probably not even true) and thus cannot be mentioned without their permisson (ridiculous), and (2) article is slanderous and she is just helping protect Wikipedia from a lawsuit. Bad faith nomination by anon user. Herostratus 06:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• A sure Keep for varous reasons as mentioned above. A well known term. --Bhadani 14:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep why would one remove it?
• Keep. Obviously. Notable management fad quality methodology. I don't understand why anyone would want six sigmas when they could have Zero defects, but zero defects is sooooooo 1960s. Nor do I understand the fudging reasoning as to why something can be called "six" sigmas when it is actually 4.5, or what orifice six and 4.5 and 1.5 and so forth were pulled from as being the "right" values. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Just for laughs I looked up Six Sigma at the uspto trademark search site, do the "new user search" for "sig sigma motorola" in fields ALL. Motorola does hold two live trademarks, sn 74199225 and 74026418. There's also "Six Sigma Ranch and Vineyards." I don't see how this is relevant, other than that perhaps the article should acknowledge the trademark if it doesn't already. But of course there's no infringement involved, since nobody, but nobody could mistake Wikipedia for anything having to do with quality control. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's an important manufacturing topic. User:Ray Van De Walker
• Speedy Keep Even I know what this is. --Bachrach44 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: only the nominator may request a speedy keep unless it is vandalism or violates WP:POINT, see Wikipedia:Speedy_keep. Stifle 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This term is in widespread use at business schools all over the world - Google "six sigma programs" to verify --Shannonr 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a really dumb business thing but it definitely exists. Stifle 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Can we close this debate now? There's obviously consensus. ike9898 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article. It's a very usefullead in to the subject.
• Keep. I can see no reason to even contemplate deletion of this article as a concept to be included in Wikipedia; the content of the article is another matter altogether. Courtland 19:03, 11 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.