Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design technology

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. Sandstein 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Design technology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unreferenced since 2011, and I can't find a single coherent source that shows that it's a notable discipline in its own right. Slashme (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(revert to) Redirect Design and Technology per Gibmetal77 (talk · contribs)'s move (diff). Apparently more or less the same thing, and sources vastly favor the name with "and". For procedural information, it is DezignViz (talk · contribs) that voided Gibmetal77's initial three-year-standing redirect and major contributor to some bulk of this version. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it could be properly sourced and better written. What we have here are two different topics all together. Design and Technology is an educational catch-phrase used for the course-work that produces what is also known as computer literacy, unfortunately Design and Technology also uses the shortened form "Design Technology". In removing the original redirection, DezignViz did so stating it was in favor of a more universal definition of the term. But what was created seems to be an article about the industrial process of using machines, primarily computers, in the design process. As such it is somewhat of a subset of Computer-aided technologies, but broader than just Computer-aided design and including Computer-aided industrial design and Manufacturing process management. There are a large number of books on product design technology. Such as Knowledge Intensive Design Technology edited by Jonathan C. Borg et al.; Satellite Communications: System and Its Design Technology edited by Takashi Iida; Food Industry Design, Technology and Innovation by Helmut Traitler et al., just to name the first three I found. And, no, aside from reading the preface to Knowledge Intensive Design Technology, I didn't do more than glance at them to make sure that they were on point. --Bejnar (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and Keep or Delete for now First I disagree with merging this into Design and Technology That article is about academic programs geared around design and technology. Its the difference between having an article about Information Technology and an article about course programs that teach IT. And IMO the topic definitely rates its own article. I know of some excellent research on this topic. Unfortunately, I can't recall the names of the researchers now but its definitely a worthwhile topic. There are commonalities across various kinds of design tools: CAD, CAM, CASE, Video editing, Animation, etc. So I think this rates an article but I agree the current article is not up to Wikipedia standards, no references it reads like someone's opinions. So if it can't be improved then I recommend deleting for now. I'll see if I can remember some of the research on this and post a follow up if I can. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.