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. Tone 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Negative work time[edit]

Negative work time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Found this when patrolling the newpages log from the back. I'm not sure, this might be a neologism I've never heard this expression before and the only related link Google comes up with is this article. The lack of third party, non-trivial sources is making me think original research. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Humourous, but no sources are listed and Google finds nothing. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a gsearch for "Theory of Negative Work Time" gets exactly one hit: this unsourced page. JJL (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced neologism. Funny, the third time is a charm - google does turn up another use of this term and it's a completely separate neologism that sounds more plausible, but neither belong on WP.
• Merge with Parkinson's Law. Not notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No sources, no place on WP. Contributing to this discussion could be considered 'negative work time'! Hazir (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with 100 bonus edits in the mainspace (non-reversible, and with edit summaries) to Hazir for that astute observation. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 19 April 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.