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. W.marsh 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was on WP:PROD for five days but as an industrial engineer who has heard of this stuff before, I don't feel that it should be deleted without review. I vote keep, but I'm open to renaming as well. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but requires cleanup DrIdiot 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it sounds legitimate but could do with expansion. -- Mithent 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as protologism. Spangineer, you're an industrial engineer, please tell me WHERE you have heard of the term. Can you cite sources? If we allow this, I'm afraid of what will show up next: Time and procedural engineering? Time and methods analysis? Applied study of methods and time measurements? Anyone can make fancy names for topics like these! --Perfecto 09:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trick for these topics is coming up with a name that is both descriptive and universally used. Basically, this is a general term that is similar in meaning to some other topics, so it's easy to talk about this without actually calling it "time and methods engineering". But if you were to say to someone in IE, "I'm doing some time and methods engineering", they'd have a good idea of what you're talking about. I can't say exactly where I've heard it before, but here are some examples of where it is used: Maynard is a major player in IE (see MOST), and they offer a course in "Intensified Time Study and Methods Engineering" ([1]). University of Wisconsin and other universities offer courses in "Methods engineering" (IE 470; [2] - pdf). Another course syllabus refers to "Methods-time analysis, or methods engineering" ([3]). It may be better to not have this article and instead have a methods engineering article and a work measurement article, but because the areas are related, and because it's not that big of a difference from what we have now, I don't see any reason to make that switch, especially for an article this short. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:24, 18 February 2006 (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.