Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manufacturing Research Practitioner

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 delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing Research Practitioner

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Seems to be original reasearch. I can find no evidence that such a concept as a manufacturing research practitioner exists. Comments by the author on the talk page (since deleted by the author) indicate that this is a doctoral study. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Reads like notes from a powerpoint that i slept through. Mystache (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesnt even define what the term means. Mystache (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dug through the article, found some sort of a definintion and made it into something like a lead. Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting definition, since Wikipedia is less than original; perhaps ingesting some talent occasionally can’t hurt. West Point forbids its cadets from using any Wikipedia as a source. I found Manufacturing Research Practitioner by using Google, since Google is the General of Internet search, worth listening too. My question is how do you become judge and jury for Wikipedia, I’m interested in signing up. My vote is keep Manufacturing Research Practitioner.--Jasonanders (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Jason Enders USMA — Jasonanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note that, while google is not necessarily an indicator for inclusion, a google search of the term yields 9 hits, most of which are wikipedia or the author's blog Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jason (Joe Army) during undergrad class a professor lectured about the disconnect between manufacturing expert and academic researcher. Now as a grad student at Texas A&M, we have been instructed not to take Wikipedia seriously. Manufacturing Research Practitioner reads to as the potential next generation of researcher. My vote it keep this page and encourage others to edit and add to it... --Johnking2 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)John P.King — Johnking2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment/Internal Monologue If your instruction tells you to not take wikipedia seriously, why do you care about the inclusion of this article? and more importantly why should it be kept? Mystache (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John king has made no other edits other than this page. I'm thinking sockpuppet of Jasonsanders §hawn poo 03:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per the "PowerPoint" argument :-) ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please do just that, Pietro

Delete per nom. Nelson50^T 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is on your About Page, it appears it no longer applies? [1] Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge. This means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references, or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. Substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes.--PietroSavo (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro[reply]

I think I am getting the hang of this--PietroSavo (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro[reply]

Anyone is welcome to add ... as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies. cf wp:note, wp:att, wp:pov, wp:or. Mystache (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any Gscholar or Gbook hits. Fails WP:V, which is one of the most basic policies around. I'm not happy with the comments above "Reads like notes from a powerpoint that i slept through" - what is that good for? - unnecessary I would say. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - nough said. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:29, 10 March 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.