Atomic engineering : It is certainly not general use.  Nuclear engineering is very different, and what this article claims to cover is part of chemistry/physics.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions .  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This entry has been updated since the discussion started.  2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA ( talk ) 22:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Clearly whoever wrote this article had no idea what they were talking about.  Nuclear engineering has nothing to do whatsoever with arranging atoms in materials.   The latter is referred to as nanoscience or nanoengineering at present, even though it's at sub-nanometer scales.   Reference 1 does not mention "atomic engineering" at all; reference 2 does, but it's from 1946 and was defining a neologism that never caught on; the other references are all talking about different things.   I can't find anything referring to "atomic engineering" as a discipline, let alone a discipline with as contradictory a definition as this article offers.   I would suggest a merge to nanotechnology but there's not much to merge; the article is mostly just conflicting definitions of the term and some surrounding context.   Delete.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nuclear engineering has to do with controlling and using nuclear degrees of freedom and radiation.   There should be nothing inherent about lengthscale that limits nuclear engineering, nor should the focus be to just get electrical power.   For example, controlling nuclear spin in Nitrogen-Vacancy center defect in diamond belong to nuclear engineering.  Prof. Paola Cappellaro at Department of Nuclear Engineering at MIT works on controlling such atomic point defects to be quantum sensors.  MindHand ( talk ) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The concept of atomic engineering is akin to the "atom forge": https://tickle.utk.edu/kalinins-atomic-scale-building-research-featured-in-physics-today/ https://www.ornl.gov/content/fire-atom-forge https://www.nature.com/articles/539485a and is getting general use (we should include these references on the page).   Nuclear engineering arises out of physics/chemistry, but with an engineering focus.  MindHand ( talk ) 14:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Atomic engineering starts to be used by many other researchers ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-024-00501-z ) to describe the atomic structure modification of crystal.  The relationship between atomic engineering and nuclear engineering has been modified in the revision.  2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA ( talk ) 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WeirdNAnnoyed ThaddeusSholto ( talk ) 22:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The information of DOE program on Atomic Precise Manufacture in 2019 is added.  Ldm1954 said the STEM hole drilling and STM litho is obsolete, which absolutely has no foundation.  The hole drilling attempted by Colin Humphreys has a resolution of 10 nm at best, which cannot be considered as atomic precision (0.1 nm precision required).  2603:3024:185A:3100:6478:8AEF:C308:DBFA ( talk ) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly do not misquote me, I stated "abandoned".  It should be mentioned that the 2019 program was central to a previously deleted page atomically precise manufacturing .  Much of the information recently added is very, very similar to what was deleted almost a year ago.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Abandoned" is not correct either.  There is a constant flow of interest in working on atom control with these techniques.  Apart from the electron-microscopy-based work listed in the main context, there is also interests in STM lithography (like what has been demonstrated here , and the technique commercialized by Zyvex and what they recently demonstrated ).  This is not a speculation, but has been demonstrated scientifically with notable references.  The main challenge is how to "scale-up" the technique for application purpose, but those progress should be added as atomic engineering progress.  My opinion to Keep this article stays the same.  2603:3024:185A:3100:FDDE:9F22:503:C048 ( talk ) 02:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You are quoting from the deleted page.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 02:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2603:3024, you can only cast one vote, even when your IP address changes slightly.  Rigt now, you've voted Keep four times.  L iz Read!  Talk!  04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *A slight modification of my original nomination: best is Draftify , second is WP:TNT for a new draft and third is Delete .  To explain.  A feature of AfD is that articles can be (sometimes are) improved after being nominated.  This has happened here, but I do not think it is the same article; it is enough different to be a new synthesis.  It would not be right for it to preserve the old status.  And, sadly, it is currently full of science errors.  Hole drilling in STEM was first looked at by Colin Humphreys decades ago, then pretty much abandoned.  STM lithography is also old, was a DARPA project and pretty much abandoned.  Way more careful research is needed, in my professional opinion this revised version is very weak.  And, yes, electron microscopy is part of my core competency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 ( talk • contribs ) Returning to my original nomination of Delete .  I just re-read the page, and it is now on a completely different topic to the original version that I nominated, for which see here .  Following the AfD the page has been completely rewritten by a (it appears) different editor.  The current page is now very, very similar to a page Atomically precise manufacturing which was deleted in June 2023 following this discussion with WP:TOOSOON , WP:V , WP:CRYSTAL , WP:OR being some of the issues raised by various editors.  Ldm1954 ( talk ) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete