Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Technology Fails


 * 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   keep. I would ad that the nominator ignored the advice in the guide to deletion to avoid using wiki-acronyms and initialisms in the nomination. The least you could do is link them. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

When Technology Fails

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:Notability (books) Unexplained PROD decline by article creator. Delete. Safiel (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous short forms here which are not linked or explained? How can one defend inclusion if terms are not linked or explained? PROD ? WP ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aretheysafe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Could find no coverage at Google News; in fact, a more recent Pew report by the same name seems more notable than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete This is a hard one to research because the title itself "When Technology Fails" is such a commonly used phrase. The actual book, however, appears to be not so notable.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only Google News result mentioning this is behind a paywall. Can anyone see what it says?   D r e a m Focus  17:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NBOOK. Lacks reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the book has a lot of good sources in it! what is WP:NBOOK ?  Where can I read about it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aretheysafe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NBOOK  D r e a m Focus  21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a scholarly work often cited by others. See, for example, this Google scholar search. Seems like the article creator could've spent a wee bit of time though in fleshing out the article with readily-available s cites.  I remember seeing the work cited as well by a local newspaper (Puget Sound area) re the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse, but it was some time ago and may not be in someone's news archive index any longer. However, several experienced engineers I know expressed familiarity with the book off the top of their heads when I asked them. So, given that is it a recognizable title to some engineers and is well-documented as a scholarly source re the above search query, perhaps a deletion is hasty. Sctechlaw (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct typo) Sctechlaw (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've just gone and done some minor expansion and referencing. The only concern left is the notability question. I will refrain from !voting since I've contributed to the article. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The updated article now says "It was one of the top referenced books in the New York Public Library in 1995.[2]" Used by scholars, so the book is notable.  D r e a m Focus  10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure what it looked like before but passes notability now. Szzuk (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.