Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental Nanotech Initative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Developmental Nanotech Initative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just a far-fetching essay on a possible development of nanotechnology Materialscientist (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - while this may sound far-fetched now, we must remember that the Nanotech Age is only about 15 years away. By then, it might be in the greater good of the global community to establish a developmental nanotech initative. GVnayR (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination; uninformative, "forward-looking" article containing vague predictions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have made some steps to make this article more informative and less vague. Please consider changing your vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On my side, I've read the revisions, but consider them only a minor rephrasing which did not change the article style. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest that I should change my article style? I'm trying to make it sound as informative and plausible as possible. GVnayR (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, to provide verifiable facts on development of nanotechnology, not speculations on how it may possibly develop. This field is very dynamic, with breakthrough discoveries coming every now and then - no long-term forecast is to be trusted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I admit that I can't write Wikipedia articles about nanotechnology as good as other people might like it. Look at it this way - change the style of the article to whatever suits your fancy; don't delete it. This information could be important if I happen to have a son or daughter someday. GVnayR (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, to provide verifiable facts on development of nanotechnology, not speculations on how it may possibly develop. This field is very dynamic, with breakthrough discoveries coming every now and then - no long-term forecast is to be trusted. Materialscientist (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest that I should change my article style? I'm trying to make it sound as informative and plausible as possible. GVnayR (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On my side, I've read the revisions, but consider them only a minor rephrasing which did not change the article style. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have made some steps to make this article more informative and less vague. Please consider changing your vote to keep. GVnayR (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is someone's essay. Miami33139 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For the record, I did place two properly cited references. If it sounds too much like an essay, change it. Don't delete it because this source of "future knowledge" could be useful to our sons and daughters someday. GVnayR (talk) 19:52, 13 October 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.