Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomically precise manufacturing (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 delete‎. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atomically precise manufacturing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

The page is scientific speculation about future methods which have not been demonstrated so may never work. While it has been cited in some science blogs and similar, is it not validated science. Hence it does not belong on WP IMHO. (If it ever is achieved, then a section can be written including the nobel nomination (?).) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of APM have already been achieved with hundreds to thousands of refereed publications. However, the larger vision of using APM for bulk fabrication is yet to be achieved. Within the field, there is active debate about the meaning of APM, and as convergence happens, this language will be inserted.

I have made some changes in the intro to try to make the page less subjective. It's just a start, though. Maybe a section should be added about how the field debates the concepts. 50.204.119.4 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as a scientist who has worked in Materials Science/nanoscience for decades, I will contest the statement "hundreds to thousands of refereed publications". The lack of refereed citations in the article attests to this. Indeed, your revision of the introduction where you include many "could" reinforces that this is speculation. Please see WP:Crystal.

N.B., please do not claim STM, quantum computing or hypothetical room-temperature superconductors to be part of this. The first two are massive in their own right; the last is comparable to cold fusion. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, I'm not sure if I'm reading your nomination correctly, but is the concern that the technology/method does not yet exist and/or are not likely to exist soon? Because we do have articles on room temperature superconductors and cold fusion (which are probably much better covered than this topic) and even death rays and anti-gravity. Care should of course be taken to adhere to scientific consensus and, for example, not state anything as fact if it is speculative, that is not in itself a reason to not have an article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All those you mention are well-balanced with extensive details, viable cites/sources etc. I have no problem with them.

After removing two duplicates, this article has 9 cites:

Ref 1 is a proposal abstract
3 & 8 are manufacturer sales material
6 is a white paper
2, 5, 7, 9 are not peer reviewed and are blogs or comments
4 is a reviewed crystal ball paper. Relevant, but not a demonstration source.
8 is the only relevant peer reviewed source.

To me this is way too little, plus most should be removed as inappropriate, WP:RS. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., with ongoing edits the specific numbers are changing, but the conclusion remains: WP:RS Ldm1954 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping open the possibility of blowing it up and starting over even if we can, do you think it would be possible to write a well-balanced article after removing the bad sources and adding ones that are not currently present? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find them, and are willing to invest the time then it could be possible. I am not enthused.

Addendum: I just went through and deleted most of the parts which came from the DOE proposal of Ref #1. There is not much left. I think you would have to start fresh.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're all volunteers here, so nobody has to do any work they don't want to. If you're alright with removing everything overly speculative, then we might just leave it at that. Maybe some people at one of the noticeboards will be willing to put things on their watchlists and challenge questionable additions (though, of course, most of us here are not experts, so will most likely more often go by tone instead of actual content). At least nominally, it is then up to the people adding stuff in to meet WP:BURDEN. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the fluff. I might come back later to check.

For reference, this is connected (without proper citing) to the DARPA 2015 "Atoms to Product" program. With AI/MI and additive manufacturing this topic is pretty much dead. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remains my vote.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Technology. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails to meet WP:V and based on WP:TOOSOON it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps merge with nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing whatever would be salvageable?~~ The speculative topic of the article does not merit an independent encyclopedia entry, a section in an existing article on an overarching topic would definitely be sufficient. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) All right, striking my !merge per below, but I hereby go fence because it seems a shame to lose somehow... --Ouro (blah blah) 19:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not merge with nanotechnology; despite the name that is a science topic. I would not merge one paper (remember this is speculation) with the existing, well-written (IMHO) nanomanufacturing page. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I follow You. Delete then? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain 👎 Ldm1954 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. Merging these this article with the recommended page will be misleading as per WP:FORUM and WP:OR. This article is talking about fabrication approach, currently under efforts of developing using various experimental techniques, but not yet achieved. Based on WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda forgot this discussion was still running. I don't find the deletion rationales particularly compelling given that they don't mesh too well with how our content is generally organised from what I can tell, but I don't particularly care whether this turns out to be keep or redirect without a merge. To clarify, Nanosci, are you arguing this under WP:DELREASON 6, 7 or 8? CRYSTAL in reference to 8 is in relation to speculation not covered in reliable sources, i.e. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Again, issues with the current content of the article should probably be taken to WP:FRINGEN (or just boldly removed). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My WP:CRYSTAL is based on the "Proposed Method" section of the webpage. That is pure current undergoing research exploration and can be seen as pure speculation. Although, I was aware of past misleading references with those removed, they are no longer the issue. However, this page can be still categorized as a perfect example of prediction of future technology. Based on WP:TOOSOON (and as you quoted WP:Fringen, I would support to WP:BeBold and delete the page.
Nanosci (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the deletion policy works. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a prediction, it is a speculation. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a reminder, you can only offer one bolded "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Nanosci (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would think keep it. It has a section on lab developed applications, showing some electronic applications have been assembled, even though of a small quantity of units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (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.