Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical failure

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term is far too vague to be encyclopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely self-explanatory DICDEF, and the concept is so general I don't see how it could be expanded into a full article on different types or examples of technical failure, etc. without massive amounts of OR and/or SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Technological failures category that covers this pretty well already (and I guess would be a search result if this page didn't exist, so no need for a redirect). Adam Sampson (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how this could be improved beyond a dictionary definition. The term/concept doesn't appear to have been theorized by philosophers or STS scholars. I could only find passing mentions like this one: "In the case of new and innovative technologies, we do not have accident statistics for calculating failure probabilities for the simple reason that no accidents have yet occurred. In such cases, engineers often employ fault trees or event trees in order to estimate the probability of failure. An event tree sketches possible sequences of events that can follow some kind of potential technical failure, like the failure of a plane’s landing gear to properly operate. A fault tree sketches the possible series of events that can lead to an accident such as, for instance, the crashing of an aeroplane." Suriname0 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2024 (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.