Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanoarchitectonics

Nanoarchitectonics

[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)

Jargon term invented in 1999 that has never been adopted by the wider community. I would just delete it as very little links to it. (If you really, really want the name then do a redirect to nanotechnology, but I am not in favor of that.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Everything salvageable in this article is already covered in the Nanotechnology article; the term is a needlessly-technical synonym for "controlled nanoassembly" and, as nom said, has never caught on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few-second search brings 30,000+ links to dissimilar Google Books and 3000+ uses in Web of Science, either in the article title or abstract. That is definitely not negligible. According to ref. 1 in the article, nanoarchitectonics is wider than nanotechnology and involves ".. non-nanotechnology fields such as supramolecular chemistry with self-assembly/self-organization [44–47], materials fabrications [48–50], and biotechnology [51–55]". Materialscientist (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot verify your claim of 3000+ uses in WoS, I get 1,175 and many of those that have some cites come from K. Ariga. This compares to 55,639 for nanotechnology and 185,073 for nanoparticle. I will definitely dispute the claim in the lead of the article that producing graphere is part of nanoarchitectonics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you restrict your search? I search in all fields over Web of Science Core Collection. Ariga contributes to 308 entries out of 3,039, that is 10%. Nanoparticle is a different object class. Nanotechnology is definitely a more popular term than nanoarchitectonics, I am not arguing against that. Surely we can dispute how to class technological processes, such as graphene exfoliation, but I don't see how this would be relevant to a decision to keep/delete an article. Anyway, I think graphene exfoliation in the lede explains "nano-creation" and not necessarily nanoarchitectonics. Materialscientist (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not restrict my search, I am not sure why there is a difference. Let's wait for more opinions, at the moment it would be "no concensus". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking a couple pages into those Google Books results, and they seem to stop using the term nanoarchitectonics. In general, GB includes a hefty proportion of near-matches, particularly when the search query itself is a rare term. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism/branding term for an area that is not meaningfully distinct or well-defined. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]