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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerability equilibrium

[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism coined yesterday, possibly by the author or a close relative. Also, to quote the article itself, "Many people who know better consider this an idea so obvious as to be not worth naming." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination. WP:NEO. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a trace of it can be found online, WP:NEO. MuffledThud (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto and etcetera. The coinage of a new word for an old and obvious idea does not create a new idea. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete When you write an article, and admit in the article it's a useless term... save everyone some time and forgo creating said article. Delete per WP:NEO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:36, 25 November 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.