Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanotechnology in fiction (2nd nomination)

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 keep. John254 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nanotechnology in fiction

Nanotechnology in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A trivial unsourced dumping ground for anything related to nanotechnology in fiction. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. A notable theme in fiction, beefing up the first paragraph and adding some references regarding the general use of nanotechnology in fiction and science fiction would be a good idea – as would cleaning out some of the worst cruft. Artw 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs a lot of work, but journal articles like "Teaching Societal and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology to Engineering Students Through Science Fiction" [1] and "Microscopic Doctors and Molecular Black Bags: Science Fiction's Prescription for Nanotechnology and Medicine" [2] show that the article's topic is notable and verifiable. This book has chapters like "Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science" and "Less is More: Much Less is Much More: The Insistent Allure of Nanotechnology Narratives in Science Fiction". I'll add some material to the article before this AfD closes. Bláthnaid 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are almost 2,500 Google Scholar hits for "nanotechnology+fiction". Even if just 1% of these articles relate to this article, that is an abundance of reliable sources. Bláthnaid 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nanotechnology, in this case, is "magic". Centuries from now, children might learn about how nanobots were programmed by a kindly old scientist to temporarily transform Cinderella's garments, with default setting to commence at 2359 hours. Mandsford 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are sufficient references for the notability of the overall topic, the items are adequately encyclopedic content, they can be sourced from both primary and secondary sources. that really should be the end of the discussion--except for the above comment that one particular user doesnt think its a notable subject, in his personal judgement. And the nom's comment about WP NOT DIR-- I can not see how this is in any sense a directory--to what? That's a novel argument in the rash of deletions on similar subjects, possibly because all other versions of WP NOT have been tried and failed. DGG (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Blathnaid. --Itub 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as an article that dicusses nanotechnology as a plot device, but not as yet another I spy "x in popular culture" list. There are plenty of sources and notability for this subject. I have boldly removed the IPC list, and I encourage editors to write about this subject in prose, not as a list. --Phirazo 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Biophys 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Blathnaid. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 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.