Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey goo in fiction


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Grey goo in fiction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - yet another collection of loosely associated items, ironically about collections of strongly associated items. Otto4711 21:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely useless; I must say, I like Otto's bit about the irony :-) Nyttend 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 22:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia, with lots of WP:OR Corpx 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Eric Drexler should be a pretty authoritative source. He says, of his report in the Institute of Physics journal Nanotechnology, that "Science fiction writers focused on this idea, and 'grey goo' became closely associated with nanotechnology, spreading a serious misconception about molecular manufacturing systems and diverting attention from more pressing concerns. This new paper shows why that focus is wrong." So that's confimation of its general use, and that a list of specific, notable works would be encyclopedic. For individual items, WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR can be addressed by simple editing and sourcing. For example: BBC is one of many that says Prey by Michael Crichton is about grey goo  (see second last para). Canuckle 17:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is Michael Crichton's Prey notable enough to get a mention in the Grey goo article or a similar 'in fiction' article? Since we have a good source, place a brief and sourced paragraph in grey goo article, and then create a category for 'Grey goo in fiction' and include the works of these writers that are based on Grey goo.  Then, delete the article.  CaveatLectorTalk 06:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A category sounds like a good suggestion, although it too will need to be policed. 'Grey goo in fiction' is a topic that legitimately deserves more than jsut a throwaway, brief paragraph in the main article. The second sentence in the main article states that its usual use is in science fiction and yet the main article doesn't explore that use in any significant fashion. My advice would be for the nanotechnology project to use sourced prose to describe the use of goo in fiction, and common scientists' complaints about it. Any examples cited should require sources that explicitly say the work's use of grey goo is important. (No unsourced speculation that the 1950s Blob movie could be an example of the phenomenom). Other works could be categorized as described above. Canuckle 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, in agreement in substance with Canuckle, but the need to cut out the trivia and find cites may be daunting. Bearian 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that this is a list of loosely associated topics and fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, totally useless list of loosely associated trivia. Burntsauce 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  J- stan  Talk 20:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete/categorise as proposed by CaveatLector. I trust that I am not alone in finding the concept of 'grey goo' somewhat intractable! Given that we have an article the line of actions suggested seems the best way forward. Bridgeplayer 22:17, 31 July 2007 (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.