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. JForget 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech age

[edit]

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

wp:crystal. This article seems like a random assortment of predictions about technological developments in the 21st century. I'm not against having this article, but there seems to be no consensus, among the people making these predictions, about what developments will take place, other than the existence of nanotechnology itself in some form. I think this article would have to be entirely rewritten, and have at the very least an outline of the groups of people making these predictions and how they differ from each other. Bob A (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no need to have a separate article from nanotechnology. Polarpanda (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no need for the Nanotech age article to be separate from the nanotechnology article, why don't you merge the nanotech age article into the nanotechnology article? GVnayR (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be confident to merge this article into nanotechnology, but I oppose that: the whole content of nanotech age aims at essay-ish and speculative prediction of the future whereas nanotechnology is about realistic technology of today. Nanotechnology is one of the most dynamic fields of science and any prediction for longer than a couple of years is just unrealistic. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How can I make my article less essay-ish? I have cited 25 references in my article and that information should be merged into a related article rather than deleted. After all, I am a avid fan of nanotechnology and Raymond Kurzweil and I would like to see the transhumanists of Wikipedia do more to preserve this knowledge that our sons and daughters could really use someday. GVnayR (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I can help but noticing that we've had exactly the same arguments here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  There are interesting and profound differences between us, Materialscientist. I am a transhumanist but I am a not a scientist per se. You are a scientist but "choose" not to practice transhumanism. All the transhumanism "education" that I received came from Vernor Vinge and Raymond Kurzweil. Neither of them have strayed me in the wrong direction because they tend to think unconventionally like me. Maybe conventional scientists shouldn't be dealing with matters related to transhumanism and the Singularity. GVnayR (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You mean "scientific minds" are intrinsically clouded in judging transhumanism and should be excluded from such debates? I don't believe so. Please understand that I, and most other scientists I know, are open to unconventional thinking - just tend to verify things before believing in them. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I found more than 20 references and cited them to the article where appropriate. If it's too much of an essay to be on this website, why don't you alter the style to make it look like an encyclopedia entry? I was conditioned in school to make essays, not encyclopedia entries. GVnayR (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  For whatever it's worth, i'm a transhumanist, but i come from a rather different memeticity than kurzweil. Bob A (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I just happen to like Kurzweil's memeticity. The first book that I read that was really transhumanist was his "The Singularity is Near" book. GVnayR (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Nanotechnology article is about nanotechnology. The Nanotech age article should be about people's expectations of nanotechnology. These expectations are real world facts that people should know about and deal with. There are 192 United Nations member states that have signed on to Millennium Development Goals.

The debate held at the University of Nottingham [[1]] in August 2005 on Nanotechnology gives respectable real world opinions about the expectations for the future of Nanotechnology. What predictions are worth considering should be guided by their source from respectable institutions rather than by editors who have contributed to the Nanotechnology article and perhaps see their personal judgement about what is significan threatened.--Fartherred (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see that more people are aware of the differences between my Nanotech Age article and the nanotechnology article, I will change my vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just got rid of the two dubious sources that Fartherred didn't approve of. After all, I believe this article has a future on Wikipedia. It is strongly suggested that Polarpanda and Materialscientist change their votes to keep because I am working hard to make this article less essay-like and more encyclopedia. GVnayR (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the diffs, i don't see any significant improvement in the article. Some of the predictions i, personally, find likely, while some i find unsubstantiated and some i find banal or stupid. Even the ones i find likely are uncertain on account of peak oil. Bob A (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you listened to the documentary on the Minority Report DVD very carefully, the futurist said that fossil fuels on are their way out. Things won't come crashing to a halt because of peak oil because renewable energy is going to power everything in the future (i.e., solar, wind, nuclear fusion). GVnayR (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Speculative articles about things that might be possible in the future are a fine thing, but Wikipedia isn't the proper venue for them. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I suggest editing the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards instead of deleting it. Consider this quote from WP:BEFORE "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." The Millennium Development Goals and the University of Nottingham nanotechnology debates are historical facts worthy of recording.

The informed discussion of what is necessary for colonizing planets is the basis for a group of Wikipedia articles. This demonstrates that some comment about things in the future is proper in Wikipedia. If unsourced and poorly sourced claims are removed from "Nanotech age" it can be well on its way to being a fine article.--Fartherred (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards, why was it put for deletion in the first place? It would be in the best interest of Bob A to withdraw his nomination. Wikipedia can't close its eyes to future knowledge forever. Give it enough time, and this might become a FA-class article someday. GVnayR (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed to be male. Bob A (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that gender-specific statement, Bob A. I will be more careful in the future. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because article's author User:GVnayR is not knowledgeable and topic is not notable. Wikipedia is not a place for speculative fiction. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There happens to be 5150 Google hits on "nanotech age." And I happend to be knowledgable about history, and a little bit of science and technology. It's not like I slept my way through high school. GVnayR (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article just seems to be speculation about things that cannot be verified until they actually happen (or don't as the case may be). Mah favourite (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Future knowledge should never be shunned on Wikipedia. If we don't add some stuff about the near future (outside of fiction), we'll start losing our viewers to Future Wikia once the Singularity gets closer and more people start to be curious about things like nanotechnology and moon colonization. GVnayR (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, future knowledge is fine but this seems more like future speculation. In my opinion Wikipedia should only mention future events when it can be shown that definite plans exist for specific projects (similar to the articles for upcoming films, albums etc). If a company has outlined plans for a future development in nanotechnology and this has been discussed by reliable third party sources then an article can be written. The content of this article seems to me like broad speculation presented as fact. Maybe there is a way that the article can be kept by changing the way that the speculation is presented and calling it something like Theories of a future nanotech age but I am really not sure. Also, articles should not be written to try and keep 'viewers' at the expense of the core principles of Wikipedia. There are lots people who are interested in reading essays, stories, speculation etc, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should start including these things. It is an encyclopedia and if people are after something other than encyclopedic material then it is fine for them to get it elsewhere. Mah favourite (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it takes to keep this article on Wikipedia, then I change my vote to rename this article to Theories of a future nanotech age. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 10 December 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.