Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fail-safes in nanotechnology

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. ✗plicit 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fail-safes in nanotechnology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Page that fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Notability. It combines a number of different topics, with original research suggestions for ways to prevent malfunctions. The page contains 8 sources, but only [6] is claimed to be related to failsafe and reading of the source only has “In the future, if our molecular automaton is sent on a medical mission, it can be programmed to exercise similar judgment”, i.e. crystal ball. When this page was created in 2008, perhaps there was discussion of building failsafe into future nanotech, although I am dubious; for certain this neologism has not been adopted by the community. Topics such as self-healing materials, self-healing hydrogels, self-healing concrete (and a few more) as well as fault tolerance are well established, and should not be confused with this neologism.

Curtesy ping of User:Bearian. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Some folks want to eliminate all of these poorly sourced articles on nanotechnology, some want to leave them all here. I'm taking them on a case-by-case basis. Everyone knows that we have never published original content. There's lots of places to publish this. We're a charity under attack and we can't stray from our missions. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion about the nano articles. If repairable and notable they are fine, and should have sources added and be updated although that is non-trivial work. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject is clearly entirely speculative and not suitable for inclusion. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...not only because of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but because of total misrepresentation of the sources. Source 1 is cited for the claim "It is possible to scale down macro-scale fail-safe principles and devices for similar applications at the nano-scale", but the cited reference says absolutely nothing remotely related to this. Source 2 is for the statement "These robots would have the ability to construct other nanostructures or perform medical procedures, and will be introduced into the body via an injection". "Robots" are never mentioned in the cited article, and "inject" appears once, in a passage about introducing magnetic fluids to an artery supplying a particular tissue. This article is an irredeemable disaster. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (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.