Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workload queue

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workload queue

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

A google search did not establish notability, WP:N. Two pages link to this one, but information from these links provides little information explaining the topic of this article. There is no information on the article’s talk page. The article has no references, WP:RS. It is not possible to check that the information comes from a reliable source. I cannot determine if article could be improved rather than deleted since I lack expertise in this area. No results in google books. No returns from google news. No returns from google scholar. No returns on JSTOR. I can’t find any sources that would allow me to edit this article to make it even a stub. The article was created on 7/24/2014. I am unsure whether this has been enough time for the article creator/editor to improve it. bpage (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete—This is a descriptive phrase, not a term of art. No hits in google scholar or google books that can use used to establish notability. Second option would be a redirect to Queueing theory. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with LC, a search show that this isn't a common term and I was unable to find in depth sources discussing it. The phrase is sometimes used in job scheduling, but even there, it is not standard or even common. --Mark viking (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (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.