Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Design knowledge

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. Valid topic, article needs expert attention. Potential merges with other articles should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design knowledge

Prod was removed by creator. Page is rife with WP:OR. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a cross between an essay and a garbled sales pitch, and neither seem particularly notable Richard Hock (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks:

For the off-line knowledge, there are two representation approaches. One is to highly abstract and categorize existing knowledge including experiences into a series of design principles, rationales and constraints. TRIZ is a good instance of this approach. The other is to represent a collection of design knowledge into a certain case for description. Case-based design is an example of this approach. The key issue is on the computerization of the design knowledge representation.

MEGO. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. No-one has made a case that design knowledge does not exist: this material has been taught to engineering undergrads for decades. This article is not well written (though not bad for a newbie) but if there is nothing worth saving, could we redirect it to Design methods (that has its own problems) or Design? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. This topic does exist and seems notable enough for Wikipedia. It should be kept if it can be written better. Otherwise, it should be redirected as Hrothulf mentioned above. TheDude2006 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (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.