Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand Readiness Level

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demand Readiness Level[edit]

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

This article was created by a single-purpose editor, who has stated that he or she created it "on behalf of the author of the concept". There is no evidence that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Both of the two references in the article are works by Florin Paun, the creator of the concept of "Demand Readiness Level", and so of no use in establishing notability. I looked for sources myself. Of the first twenty Google hits for "Demand Readiness Level", one was this Wikipedia article, 15 were works by Florin Paun, and the other four merely mentioned "Demand Readiness Level" briefly in passing, without giving any substantial coverage of the subject.

Normally, for an article for which neither the cited references nor an online search produces any evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines, that would be an end of the matter. In this case, however, there is also a list of 44 "sources" which are not cited in the article. At first glance it seemed that it would be very difficult to see whether these gave significant evidence of notability, as only a minority of them are available online. However, looking more closely, it is clear that half of them cannot be of any value in establishing notability of "Demand Readiness Level", as they date from before 2007, the year in which the article states that the concept was "created". (The earliest is dated 1914.) Of those which do date from later than 2007, about half are authored or co-authored by Florin Paun. One is a blog post. I have searched for information about many of the others, and for some of them I have managed to find abstracts, reviews, publishers' blurbs, or other indications of their contents; in none of those cases did I find any mention of "Demand Readiness Level". Of course, that does not guarantee that the works in question don't contain some mention of the subject, but it does suggest at least that the subject is not a major topic in those works. There is also the fact that some of the works do not seem to have much prominence: for one of them I was unable to find any mention of it anywhere except for this Wikipedia article. I am not sure what the author of the article means by "sources", but in view of the large proportion of them which date from before 2007, and the lack of prominence of "Demand Readiness Level" in anything which I have been able to find about the others, it seems likely that in this context "sources" may mean something like "any publications which have any connection at all to the subject of the article, even if they don't mention it as such." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it is clear that this article can be deleted as a neologism. I take the sources the be a bibliography on the background of the topic, as might appear in a journal article, and not in direct support of the WP article. In fact, I do find some of them in the Springer article. LaMona (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete - as per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear Delete - nothing to show its notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 8 November 2015 (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.