Talk:Mesotechnology

Absurd

This article needs serious, serious work. I'll have to do more research on it, but I have a feeling whoever originally wrote the content here just outright made most of it up. Czoller 14:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search reveals no groups known as Mesotechnology Now or Mesotomorrow, except for this article. That's not to say they don't exist, but it seems the most likely conclusion. For the time being, however, I'll leave those in. Similarly, no results for "mesosand" except this article and a reference to the picture which used to be in the article. The mesobot picture looks fake as well, but that's more difficult to verify. Given the trends of the rest of the article, however, I think it's a fair assumption that a lot of this stuff has to go. Czoller 14:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the most blatant stuff. Looking through the history I don't think this article was ever NPOV. Looks like some company trying to cash in on the nano craze in some absurd way by claiming that nanotech will somehow be replaced by their vision of mesotechnology. Nice pictures, though, if they're genuine. Even so, I wouldn't cry if this article were nominated for deletion. Antony-22 01:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.*Ahem* according to their website, the company formerly mentioned in the article is selling what the claim to be colloidal gold and whatnot as a health suppliment. I pondered the text that was left a bit more and it all seems to be really nano stuff that they're talking about and claiming is their "mesotech" stuff, so I'll take that out too. Antony-22 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks a lot better now. I tried to remove what I could, but as I know virtually nothing about nanotechnology I could only go so far. Hut 8.5 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs attention

I did a little farther research, and found that on Web of Science (which lists pretty much every scientific journal publication), there were 3,867 hits for "nanotechnology" and zero for "mesotechnology". I also searched on Google and couldn't find any notable uses of the term except for Wikipedia mirrors. That doesn't mean the term doesn't exist, but given the previous content of this article, I'd be much more comfortable if someone legit could weigh in on this. Antony-22 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a year and no legitimate information has shown up - I'm now pretty sure that mesotechnology doesn't exist. Antony-22 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try a Google search or a Google Scholar search before claiming that something doesn't exist. There are references from a variety of academic sources. I've removed the prod and hoax tags. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the articles in the Google Scholar search and didn't find anything indicating mesotechnology is used for anything distinct from nanotechnology. I do see the confusion, though, as "mesoscale" and "mesoscopic" are legitimate terms. Perhaps this article should be merged into Mesoscopic scale. Antony-22 (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I don't think that "mesotechnology" is a term that is in any formal academic sense, as per the arguments above. However, the text currently in the article seems to be describing legitimate concepts that fall under the similarly-named and already-exisiting article Mesoscopic scale. Based on these, I propose that the articles be merged. Antony-22 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]