Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weighted silk

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 as per positive consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The initial concern regarding sourcing has since been addressed, thus enabling the article to meet WP:GNG requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted silk

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

Looks like WP:OR. No sources at all. The Banner _talk 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Multiple sources exist. See 1 2 3 4 5 and that is just from the first page of Google hits alone. Mabalu (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT The Banner _talk 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Article Improvement Workshop. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} is directed at the person calling for improvement, "When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.". At AFD, that would be the nominator. Warden (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented by Mabalu. Passes GNG, encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like the nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will the nominator please use Google news archive search in the future. Ample results appear, including one in the New York Times. [1] Ample coverage of this. Dream Focus 17:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conform Ignore all rules I don't accept the stance that it is enough that sources exist, even when they are not given in the article. But I do believe in WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN, that demands that sources should be given, especially by the editor who is adding the information. According to WP:V: Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed and I know that that sentence, in combination with WP:OR, is unpopular when used in an AfD... The Banner _talk 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That quote from WP:V is for information within an article, it doesn't mean you go and erase the entire article. In much of Wikipedia's history articles were created without the need for any references at all. Even when they snuck in guidelines and whatnot, no one took them seriously for the longest time and just ignored them. Things changed, but no one bothered to go through the vast number of articles created back then, and add in references. That's why its best to follow WP:BEFORE and spend a very brief moment of your time, before wasting everyone else's time by having a pointless nomination. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 01:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BEFORE has no official status at all... The Banner _talk 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its on the page of instructions to follow to nominate something for deletion. I really hope you aren't going to be making a habit of pointless nominations. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, sources are not required to be available online. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said before: Conform Ignore all rules I don't accept the stance that it is enough that sources exist, even when they are not given in the article. The Banner _talk 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because you wish to ignore all rules, and do things your way, isn't relevant. As years of AFDs have shown, consensus is against you. Dream Focus 20:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been cleaned up and adequately sourced.--SGCM (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (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.