- 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. John254 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Smart fabric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Garbage article. Topic may be notable, but there's no evidence of notability and no references at all. Mr. Darcy talk 04:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic is very notable. A google search shows useful links straight from the get-go. This one should be saved by a massive rewrite. I'll see if the rescue squad is up for the job. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yes, this could turn out to be a good article. But someone has to write it first... - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — the first article that pops up in the cursory google search is a brief academic research essay from MIT. Nomination (in particular, "garbage topic") also seems to indicate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MuZemike (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The term is a valid term, even if the article needs great work in its current state. MrDarcy, if you don't like the way the thing looks, you can always fix it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The issues raised by the nominator are with article content, not with the subject's notability, so the solution is editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (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.