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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying Decline Rate Observed[edit]

Neologism, recently coined, very few uses of this phrase. Google search for "Underlying Decline Rate Observed" only results in five links, two of them being Wikipedia. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wikipedia is not a section of your business plan. Mystache (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course coinage is recent. OECD's IEA commenced discussion wrt decline and ramification issues in its Nov 2008 World Energy Outlook.--207.189.237.183 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To support an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term. It seems unlikely that such sources currently exist. decltype (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confirmed noms statement about few search hits. Only one source which suggests original research §hawnpoo 01:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like original, unverified research. Alexius08 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research, Possibly fails WP:N. No references. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (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.