Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical 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 delete. Consensus is that it's not useful in this form and would need a sourced rewrite. Sandstein 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical fabric

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

This unsourced article has been around for four years and has not been expanded beyond its current length of three sentences. Should be merged with Fabric or deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, please confirm that you were the editor who made this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_fabric&diff=415918495&oldid=368079461 in which you seriously degraded the original article, giving no sources or reasons of your own; and 10 minutes later, removed all of PKM's suggestions for mergers.

This article was originally created as part of a major clean-up and expansion of the fabrics categories, as a joint project between myself and PKM. It is a well known phrase describing a class of fabrics, which overlaps with other similar phrases suggested by PKM. The stub was far from perfect, but was a good addition to the set of fabrics articles.

Unless you are prepared to restore the integrity of the original stub, and/or give good reasons for your actions, in (a) degrading it, (b) effectively replacing a number of good merger suggestions with your own deletion, I see your combined set of actions as entirely destructive, lacking in good faith and I will oppose you. Bards (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Ratchet back the tone please. No, that IP edit wasn't me (and it geolocates to England, which is a bit far from the tri-state area where I live). Feel free to restore it. However, I don't think the old version is any better, or resolves my concern with this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies if it wasn't you. I have done as you suggest - the original interest value of the article is restored as intended. A selection of links to other fabrics is restored. PKM's merger proposals are restored, as an alternative to deletion, which I support. A further alternative is simply to leave it as a stub, and permit it to expand gradually, which I also support. I propose you or I take a look at those other articles, and find a good resolution which retains the Technical Fabric title. It is (potentially) a valuable main article for Category:Technical_fabrics for people who don't know what a technical fabric is, or what the various types technical fabrics are, and want a brief overview of the terms and an introduction to the subject. Bards (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Category:Technical_fabrics is one of a few carefully chosen categories into which all fabrics are classified - Woven, Nonwoven, Knitted, Net and Technical. See the structure at Category:Fabrics, with Technical fabric listed there as a main article from the subcat, along with others from the other subcats. There is presently a lot of other articles which have been dropped there randomly, and need moving into appropriate subcats. Bards (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One solution would be to redirect this to List of technical fabrics. I don't think leaving it as a stub of such tiny size is viable since the article is now four years old, and there has been no interest in expanding it. Four years and one day, to be exact. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Even after Bards' restoration, there's almost no content in this stub. I wouldn't oppose keeping it as it's non-harmful, but really, is this the sort of quality we're happy with? A clear candidate for WP:DELETETHEJUNK. The topic is an excellent subject (and should go as far back as Loden at least), but the current article is just too weak to justify itself. As an easily achievable quick hack, I'd support reworking it as a list article.

I would incidentally oppose all of the merges suggested. They seem a rather poorly thought-out bunch. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fairly meaningless. Any source-able material can go into fabric but it doesn't look like there's much! (Insert joke about 'pulling the lycra over our eyes' here.) ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 07:39, 16 June 2011 (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.