Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanotech Age


 * 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. Article can be userfied on request EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nanotech Age

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blatant crystal balling, thinly veiled by appearing to describe a trope in science fiction. The part that isn't crystal balling is pure original research. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have been doing my part to eliminate some of the OR and reference more of my work. Hopefully, this is good enough for the critics now. GVnayR (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The page still contains innumerable "will happens". Just because Kurzweil has published a book speculating about the future does not mean you can write an article about that same speculation. Including it as a summary of key points in an article on the book? Fine. Writing articles about it as if the speculation is an established fact? Not fine. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reponse to comment - Instead of trying to delete the article, why don't you rephrase the "will happens" to "may happens?" That way, we can end this petty issue and move on with our lives. GVnayR (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Because "may happen" applies to nearly anything under the Sun. The reason we don't predict the future is that "may happen" would cover articles on all sorts of absurdity which is inherently unverifiable and non-encyclopedic. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine then, I will change my vote to transwiki to Future Wikia. This valuable article won't be deleted a second time. GVnayR (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

*::: You put up a pretty convincing idea, causa sai. Because you had to guts to stand up for my article, I'm changing my vote back to keep. GVnayR (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  or userfy  as a large batch of synthesis and crystal-ballery. Taking a bunch of references that say "with that technology, this may be possible" and stringing them together doesn't make an article.  B figura  (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) updated 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then what does make an article? If you want to take over editing this article, be my guest. Since my work about the future isn't appreciated here, it's your article now. GVnayR (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd start here: WP:BRIEF. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the question: Conforming to Wikipedia's standards. It's a great article for wikia, I just don't think it's suitable for Wikipedia. If you want to move it to Wikia, by all means, do so. (I'm not sure how that works, since I've only every transwiki'd things to sister projects, I don't know how that would work for wikia). -- B figura  (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I already placed it in Future Wikia under an anonymous IP so that part of the job is done now. GVnayR (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see much speculation in this article. What I see is encyclopedic coverage of other people's speculation in primary sources. It would be better if the article's language emphasized that it is merely documentation of an existing body of work (rather than a representation of it), but that is easily fixable and hardly a deletion rationale. causa sui  ×  21:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that all the speculation is sourced (and sourced very well), the problem I see is that those speculations are combined using synthesis. -- B figura  (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair objection, and the article could use some work, but I think deletion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The article needs help, but it's an unusually good effort for a new contributor (on a worthy topic, mind you) who seems willing to respond to peer comments and criticism. We ought to be directing our efforts to helping him understand what is wrong with the article so it can be improved, especially since he seems to be so willing to accept direction from more experienced editors and then put in the effort himself. causa sui  ×  21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's very well done, but I'm not sure the problem is really fixable. This is a very well done (and well referenced) essay. I'm not sure how to go about removing the synthesis while keep any decent chunk of material. However, userfying would at least ensure that this stays around in accessible place for fixing (or so that the references can be mined for other potential articles). -- B figura  (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete impossibly indefensible synthesis and original research. each and every reference would have to specifically mention "nanotech age" or a close variant, which on cursory examination they dont. if the creator wants to try to choose some of the best refs and add them to existing articles, go ahead, esp. if some of them do refer to nanotech in a way not covered in the main article on this. ray kurzweils article doesnt even use this phrase at this time. perhaps a mention should go there first. as to whether there is a possible article here: maybe, but this content is almost completely useless. ok, if enough people are willing to do this, trim to a stub, then rebuild carefully.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This Nanotech Age article has to do more than just nanotechnology. It deals with the "state of the world" by the year 2025 when the Nanotech Age age is supposed to take place in. As a holistic transhumanist, I believe that everything is interconnected to the Nanotech Age and to each other. GVnayR (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Feel free to expand the article on Transhumanism with a limited amount of the *well-sourced* material here then. Creating an article to expound on your personal interpretation of your pseudo-religious beliefs isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Transhumanism. If nobody likes this article, then it should be merged with an article just like this one. GVnayR (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hard to say whether it's true, but it's certainly notable. -- samj in out 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Well intentioned, but not reasonable as an encyclopedic article. This would be an excellent opinion piece on a site encouraging original research, but it is not satisfactory here because a large array of views have been assembled with no coherent source (for example, "would most likely be fructose" is sourced, but has no relevance to the article topic). The content is essentially WP:SYNTH built on an unimportant speculation about the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (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.