Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production assurance

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production assurance[edit]

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

Meaningless jargon, or, alternatively mere dicdef for a particular example of meaningless jargon. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable overall, there's information and sources but this is still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your !vote comes across that it may be based only upon the sources within the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's a bit opaque I don't think "meaningless jargon" accurately or fairly describes what this is. Moreover, the concept of being able to assure that you can meet production and delivery targets seems to me to be a vital component of management. It is referenced. The nominator seems to be incapable of understanding the article, based on his description of it as "meaningless" to him -- but that hardly makes for persuasive rationale. Keep and improve. If a more informed argument to delete comes along, especially from someone with a business or management background, I would be open to changing my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - References appear valid. "Production assurance" has 64,000 google hits. I wonder if there is a alternative more common term. Production quality assurance is mentioned in some articles, which I guess is a subset of 'Production assurance'. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is Quality assurance which covers some of the same ground, though doesn't cover 'quantity assurance'. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE search shows over 500 hits in GScholar, over 1,700 hits in GBooks, and the topic is the subject of at least two standards: the Norwegian NORSOK Z-016 from the 1990's, where the concept used to be called "regularity management" and the international standard ISO 20815:2008 that uses the more modern term "production assurance". The academic papers, books and standards show the concept is notable and that there are plenty of sources upon which to build an article. --Mark viking (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:GNG pass for a detailed topic. E.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 5 May 2016 (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.