Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Respirocyte

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. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respirocyte[edit]

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

Speculation; non notable. Fails to meet any of the criteria for Science Notability:

Textbook science: Respirocytes are hypothetical; essentially science fiction
Widely cited. The current wikipedia article fails to cite any scholarly article on the real technology. Some speculatory articles are cited, but these are far from scholarly research articles. A google scholar search gets a mere 195 hits on "respirocyte", many of which are only a passing mention of the idea (and this result appears to contain a significant amount of duplicate hits)
Press and Fiction. Per the notability guidelines, if the subject has received extensive press or fiction coverage, the article should make note of the fact. It has not done so, so it's unclear whether this applies or not.
Historical interest. The first mention of respirocytes in scholarly articles seems to have been in 1996 (Respirocytes: high performance artificial nanotechnology red blood cell; RA Freitas, NanoTechnology Magazine, 1996). As such, this is not yet a technology which is old enough to qualify as historically interesting.
Popular belief. The term respirocyte is not generally known, and is likely used only with nanotechnology and/or futurist circles.

Additionally, the summary of the article is undercited and may contain original research (particularly the summary, which pulls very specific design points out of nowhere).

As such, this article should be deleted, or improved to satisfy at least one notability criterion. bd_ (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles on things which only exist in science fiction and/or hypothetical on Wikipedia. There are many articles on places or people that do not have many citations but do possess scientific, technical or historical value. If something must be historically interesting before it can be an article, almost all of the articles tagged as recent, current or ongoing events would not qualify. Wikipedia would never have 3.5+ million articles if we depended upon popular belief or widespread knowledge. The article is obviously a stub, and as such is expected to be under-cited -- you yourself found a third source and failed to include it in the article. I really don't think there is a solid case for deletion -- if the article hasn't been improved in a year and Wikipedia is running out of server space, then fine, but as for now keep it. TeamZissou (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentions on CNN and in a book by Ray Kurzweil, as referenced on the page, should establish sufficient notoriety. Jcobb (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search for the term "Respirocyte" returns more than 8,000 results, all of which refer to the hypothetical device described herein. That's notability. As for historical interest, fifteen years (see the note above) strikes me as strong evidence indeed that there has been sustained scientific interest in the respirocyte. --James Somers 08:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep for the reason given above. FunkyDuffy (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whole article is based on one book and one fleeting mention in a magazine article. If the book the idea comes from is notable enough to have its own entry, this should be a section in that entry. GideonF (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As 15 years in nano-technology history, is a long time, and thus is historically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.236.2 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Science fiction in a vanishingly small niche— clear-cut failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(science)#Criteria

Not mentioned in textbooks, let alone "regularly"

Not widely cited, rather, very scarcely cited

No extensive press coverage

Hasn't met any of the above historically

~~Is not and has not been "believed to be true by a significant part of the general population" __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Change to no opinion: That list of criteria still seems like a good idea, even if it came from a failed guideline. The books Whpq links demonstrate some notability. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (science) is a failed notability guideline, so using that as the basis for measuring notability is simply not supportable. Furthermore, this concept has been covered in reliable sources. For example these books: [1], [2], [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are sufficient for notability as a speculative concept, though of course it should not be presented as well-supported by current engineering principles. The concept gets a fair few mentions in science fiction, though usually just via waving the magic technology wand to establish that The Future is Cool. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (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.