- 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 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not encyclopedic. It is more instructional than informational, containing suggestions and ideas for design. It also contains much POV text, with phrases such as "A sweater made as a gift usually delights its intended -- but it may never be worn again if it does not serve some practical purpose." Delius1967 08:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, while I found it very useful in selecting my next sweater, I think it probably falls short on WP:NOT #4 & #6. Nice diagrams though... Budgiekiller 08:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Sweater, which is tagged as a stub; production of the item is easily part of the main article thereof. SkierRMH,08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Postpone vote As the main author of this article, I would like the opportunity of amending the article to conform to WP:NOT. I wrote it relatively early in my time here, and wasn't really aware of the policies. I believe that this article can be made encyclopedic, in the same spirit as architecture and naval architecture. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, in being both a sincere Wikipedian and capable of writing WP articles; for example, consider my involvement in several FA's over the past few months. I myself now see several problems with the article and its wording, but I invite everyone to discuss the article's shortcomings on its Talk page in a constructive way before proposing it for deletion. Today is a busy day for me, though, since I'm travelling; I'll do the best I can. Thank you very much for your patience, Willow 12:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Postpone AFD until Willow has some time to fix things. -Toptomcat 12:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Postpone (Man, that's a weird !vote.) The article, as it stands, could be much worse, and I'm willfully willing to give Willow the benefit of the doubt, as she seems like an incredibly strong contributor. If the article is fixed up within the next few days, let me know. -- Kicking222 14:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I note Information design, Product design, Production design, Game design, Graphic design, Automotive design, Interior design, Fashion design, Garden design and Urban design are all articles. Sweater design seems as valid a subject as any of these, and is discussed in a large body of literature. The article could certainly have a more encyclopedic tone, but this is not a criterion for deletion. TimVickers 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Add building design to Tim's list. This is not exactly a knitting pattern, which i would consider a how-to. The wording could be tightened up a bit to make it more encyclopedic but it seems to deal with concepts more than advice. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Tim, but also article is sourced, and I think can be improved. --Falcorian (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete/ Strong cleanup, the article as it stands now is inappropriate--far too many "shoulds" and opinion statements. It's POV and not encyclopedic. However, if rewritten, it could be legitimate, so I'd say give it a chance, come back in a couple months, and if it's still like this, delete it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Write on the article where possible, not it's deletion debate (I swear I should make that an essay or something). In my opinion deletion should be reserved for bad topics, and not bad articles. From the vast number of sources (IE dedicated magazines, with significant readerships, to knitting; college courses taught in knitting...) this appears to be a notable topic. It does strongly need cleanup, something I'm not really qualified to do, knowing nothing of the topic, but I'm confidant some editors who know more than I could make this a great article. AfD is not Requests for Cleanup, problems with voice, sourcing, POV or tone are better addressed by editing rather than nuking the article unless they are terminal and intractable flaws (like unresolvable POV definitions for lists, or nonexistant sources). Wintermut3 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for clean-up, there's potential here. Whilst there's no rule to quote (perhaps assumption of good faith?), a promise of clean-up from a productive contributor should count for something. QuagmireDog 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am skeptical that this article could ever be encyclopedic - in other words, I don't think there is potential, but I'm certainly willing to suspend judgment.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say any fairer than that. QuagmireDog 00:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep you'll usually find me on the deletionist side of any fence, but I don't understand why this article is on afd and not tagged for cleanup or somesuch. Techniques in clothing design is clearly an encyclopedic topic (though one that may be a victim of systemic bias) for which a multitude of reliable sources exist. True, it's not comprehensive and needs work on the tone (more on that on the talk page), but we don't delete articles because they're incomplete or need editing. I'm also a bit concerned that the nominator chose to bring this to afd despite having engaged with the author on the talk page and being directly told of her intention to work on it. Opabinia regalis 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a valid topic with notability, thae article is not that bad as it stands.
- Fix Better you've never seen that vote before MiracleMat 07:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What TimVickers said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Postpone AFD, give main contributor time to fix highlunder 11:52, 12 January 2007 (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.