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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronous failure[edit]

This appears to not be in common usage in the fashion specified by the article, just an extrapolation of Thomas Homer-Dixon and his viewpoints/books. Other useages are technical in nature (ie engineering specific gunk). Has remained unsourced for 6 years and very limited editing in that time. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've heard of the term. There are some Google scholar hits and lots of Ghits that should be used to look for good sources to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree with the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberhr1 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:Original Research, using a term from electronics engineering and applying it to human society without benefit of reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not exactly original research. The concept comes from Thomas Homer-Dixon's book The Upside of Down. Relevant Google hits (e.g. not referring to engineering or computing) all seem to refer to this author or book, both of which have articles. But there is no point redirecting because the term is not used in either article. Unless someone wants to add the term to one of the articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YANQM : Borrowing an acronym assembly procedure, Yet Another Notability Question Mark. Having stubbed out articles myself, I appreciate the problem here- maybe this is an important term maybe not, I don't have any idea based on the article stub. It would help if the original author could at least establish a line of inquiry, a presumption of notability, or something, with some links to search terms that may help instead of leaving us to guess where the notability may lie or if in fact the author just made the stuff up. Certainly the AfD brings up some possibilities, but it would help if we knew where the author thought we should look even if he didn't have time to single out a few citations for the article yet. I also would not label arcane jargon as "gunk" as often that is the point of an encyclopedia ( when it doesn't fall into a dictionary etc). 10-4 good buddies, catch you on the flip-flop. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment - generally, Relisting a debate 3 times is considered unneccecary, but I don't feel comfortable closing as No Consensus--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way that it is written seems like WP:OR. Warrior 4321 04:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has numerous problems. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten to address them. As it is, it is original research, and a fringe / undue / pov fork. There seems to be a real term (without all the baggage) from systems theory, but this article (fortunately or not) is not about it. ^Bongo_matic 05:21, 21 August 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.