Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time allocation

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 no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time allocation

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

Contested PROD. As the proposer of the PROD said it's a non-notable neologism - no evidence it exists outside the mind of it's creator. No Ghits returned and only a handful for the book (time management that doesn't suck) the author describes the principle in. It might grow into something but currently it's nothing more than another time management system. The one reference in the article is to the authors own website and a sample chapter from the book. NtheP (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition Possible WP:COI the author of the article is User:Jdvs82, is this short for John Davidson - the inventor of the theory? NtheP (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so...he's only ever edited Time allocation and Time management (to add links to Time allocation!). Delete as a neologism. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so let me get this straight. Because it's a self-published work, it's a neologism. If it had a fat marketing budget behind it, it would be worth having an article on. And where exactly does the fact that the article contains some valid, interesting concepts, that represent a departure from everything else on the existing Time Management page enter into the process? Oh wait, it's starting to sound like it doesn't! But I get it, you've got nothing better to do than indirectly feel a sense of power by deleting other people's articles. Go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdvs82 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok so if I rephrase it to Non-notable time management technique that is no different from any other technique I've read or used that says "break big tasks into smaller ones to make them more manageable", would you like to explain how this is so radically different? I wouldn't care if there was a million dollars behind this, from what I've seen it says nothing different. NtheP (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trout the noob for the personal attack. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – you believe he should be trouted for a personal attack and yet you call him a "noob"? Hypocritical. FWIW I also believe the article should be Deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Time allocation is quite notable, being covered in works such as Household Governance and Time Allocation, The time allocation of young men, Consequences of deforestation for women's time allocation, Computing in the home: Shifts in the time allocation patterns of households, Who maximizes what? A study in student time allocation, &c. The article we have here is just a start on this rich topic and our editing policy tells us that we should build upon this rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'm amazed that our article on time allocation is so poor. This is a major area of study. TheGrappler (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2010 (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.