Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management

Today, we want to address the topic of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management, an aspect that has gained relevance in recent times and that arouses the interest of a wide spectrum of the public. From its origins to its impact on modern society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management has been the subject of debate, reflection and study. Throughout history, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management has influenced various areas of life, from politics to culture, and its relevance has continued to grow. In this article, we will explore the different facets of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management, examining its evolution over time and its impact today. We hope that this analysis provides a broader and enriching view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies with design management, offering our readers a deeper understanding of this topic of universal interest.
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. basically indiscriminate unsourced list DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List of companies with design management

List of companies with design management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources verifying that any of these companies apply design management. The only source in the article does not contain anything to verify the information in this article. When I click on the URL, there is no mention of design management on this page at all. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Criteria is not objective, defined, or capable of being objectively defined as it stands, so no list can ever pass inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete too vague, subjective, and undefined to create a verifiable and discriminate list. Dzlife (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment There is an objective definition in the article (though not at the top): has a DM dept, has published on DM, or has won a DM award. However, the article as it stands appears entirely OR. A reference to help us uninitiated learn what DM is would also be appreciated. I also wonder if the author paid any greater attention to the facts than to spelling and links, five of which I have just corrected. Matchups 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia