Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

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 keep. Neıl ☎ 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology[edit]

Non-notable scientific theory. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence for widespreaduse ofthis term DGG (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure at this point, but leaning somewhat towards keep. I do not know anything about this field and would like to hear from more informed editors but preliminary evidence appears to indicate notability. A GoogleScholar search for "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology" gives 372 hits [1], many with multiple citations of their own and GoogleBooks search for same gives 38 hits[2]. A GoogleScholar search for UTAUT Venkatesh gives 388 hits [3] and a GoogleBooks search for same gives 33 hits[4] including one to something called "Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities and Technologies". This seems to indicate fairly substantial use of the term in the scholarly community. For a model that was only introduced in a 2003 paper, that is not half bad. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, given the above evidence of some use. - Nabla (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the gscholar and books results. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article is in dire need of restructuring (and at least one secondary source mentioning the term), but has potential of developing into a worthwhile article. I've just added a {{stub}} template as much more is needed to be done here. B.Wind (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2008 (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.