Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano brain

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. Several users herein have determined that this article comprises WP:SYNTHESIS, and most agree that this present article is not up to Wikipedia's standards. No prejudice against the creation of a new article based upon what reliable sources report, sans any synthesis or unverifiable claims. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nano brain

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

This article was mainly written by three WP:SPAs and it reads as WP:SYN, pretty blatantly so. The sources do not discuss the subject as such, and most of the text is not supported by the sources. As far as I can tell this topic embodies deep speculation and is not widely discussed. Top Google hists are sites like mindcontrol.se, and most of the high ranking hits score 8 or above on the bollocksometer. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands A quick WP:BEFORE turns up (a) primary sources (b) fringe/conspiracy sources (c) a band of this name - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure SYNTH. There is nothing cited in reliable scholarly sources and for concepts like these only high quality sources are required. I am finding a bunch of unreliable papers/patents - some of them are about a nano-sized brain implant, some are about a brain-computer interface. Some of the sources in the article do not support the text either and have no mention of "nano brain". This is ripe for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: there are several publications about nanotechnology that discuss the concept of a "nano-brain". Jarble (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would anything be left of the present article? You're talking about a completely different article with coincidentally the same title, not the present article at all - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:TNT. If there was a completely different article, we should keep it? Sure. But there isn't. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Supported by a strong reference from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. (PNAS), an excellent and highly reputable journal, but the content of the article is poorly written and makes WP:SYNTH claims. There is no content here worth keeping, so I think WP:TNT applies. Roches (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TNT. gah so much Neurohype out there. there's another article i need to write. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2016 (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.