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. Minimal discussion, but looking at the article, it seems unlikely that a relist would produce any other result. Calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Residual Working Capacity (RWC)

[edit]

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

After a search i could find very little backing this up as a recognised term as per the article with the exception of the different papers written by the person having the same name as the author of this article. From what I could find it mostly refers to the state of insurance claimants after an accident to assess their degree of handicap. I could find no references in the case of handicaps that limited it to persons overs the age of 60. Domdeparis (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. The phrase has a few different meanings according to google, but there are insufficient sources to back up this specific meaning. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2017 (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.