Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic fabric

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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as there is no support for the nom. Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic fabric

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

Article in unsourced and makes several false claims. Poorly written. Made redundant by articles on polyester, synthetic fiber, etc. Eliminate1337 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is massively notable; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would like to point out that the user account nominating this article for deletion appears to have been created solely for that purpose. This encourages me to be slightly wary. I would also point out that the nomination makes no explicit reference to any WP:POLICIES. The nominator should rectify this. Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article should certainly be kept, as it is, at least in theory, distinct from synthetic fibres. It does, of course, need a lot of work, as it has absolutely no sources. It also does not have much activity. I think this article has potential, but I myself am not going to work on it. If noone else expresses interest in working on it either, then I shall change my vote to a delete Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. No doubt it's notable, though it needs a ton of work. At the least, WP:TNT redirect it to Synthetic fiber. Ansh6 6 6 02:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Indisputably notable, encyclopaedic topic. Yes, it needs clean-up, but this does seem like an exceptionally bad-faith nomination. At the very least, the redirect Ansh suggests above is a sufficient place-holder until such time as someone wishes to expand it into the improved article it should be. Mabalu (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SK1 - Bad-faith nomination that does not articulate any policy-based reason for deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A truly dreadful article, but there are worse in Wikipedia, and the notability of the topic is beyond dispute. I note that this article is flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts which is itself tagged as inactive - there are other very unsatisfactory articles in scope and this is an area that desperately needs work. But deleting will solve nothing. Dare I say (as a man) that this is an example of the unintended gender bias in WP which still has to be resolved. It needs people who understand textiles at all levels. --AJHingston (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Biased indeed, you are. Both my grandfather and father worked in textiles at some point in their lives, while all my grandmother and mother know how to do is knit and sew. That said, that was over 30 years ago (so no synthetics) and in a country where en-wiki isn't too well represented. Ansh6 6 6 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not for a moment suggesting that this was not a matter on which men could not contribute usefully, especially when it comes to the technology and manufacture. I had better not go further than that for fear of offending somebody else. My point was rather that textiles and clothing are traditionally something that women have been more interested in than men, and contrasting the inadequate coverage of these with more traditionally male topics - cars, ships, aircraft, men's sports etc. For what it is worth the reason that I have been aware of the problem is that I have had occasion to look up clothing and textiles in WP precisely because I do not know much about them, and been generally very disappointed, so I do not want to suggest either that only women will be interested. It really does not matter who writes the articles so long as they know what they are talking about and can do it well. As for dynamiting articles such as this, it would be fine if they were to be replaced by something better, but the evidence is that they would not.

I knew I would get into trouble for bringing sex into it. --AJHingston (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ick. Sorry you thought I was offended...internet can't convey tone. I was just trying to point out that it's not just the gender bias, it's the other biases, like internet accessibility and time-type things. Ansh6 6 6 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I thought I might possibly have upset you, but I was expecting someone to challenge my comment. This is a sensitive area. Whatever the reasons, and I suspect that they are less to do with practicalities than personalities and personal inclinations, those who might have been expected to produce good articles on these topics have simply failed to do so. It may be that blogs and Tumblr are a more attractive outlet than the grind of putting together a WP article. But I would like to see that change. --AJHingston (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done a VERY quick tidy-up and edit on the article, but while I am a textile/fashion cove, I honestly don't know too much about the chemical processes and stuff. No time at the moment to work on it in more depth. Not sure that making a bad article appear slightly less badly written isn't doing more harm than good... Mabalu (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2013 (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.