Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-wear


 * 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. Wizardman 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I-wear

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, unsourced. Lemmey talk 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Keep I took another look at the article and the current sources--it is not advertising, but an incomplete and inadequate article that needs to be developed further. Keep and expand. DGG (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. SOUNDS cool, but totally unsourced and no indication of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NEO and also as a dicdef and link farm combo. Much of the article is spam.KleenupKrew (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to wearable computer. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete almost a reasonable G11 in my opinion, unless articles about t heir work can be found and discussions added. Astounding that this has been here since 2004.
 * Rename I'm not sure about the name of this article, but this concept is becoming increasingly important in the fashion world, with (for example) major designer Hussein Chalayan getting huge press for showing robotic-type moving clothing in his recent shows. (See the review of Spring 2007 here--that was the really groundbreaking one--and the review of Fall 2008 here.) Mangostar (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: everyone should go watch the amazing video of Chalayan's collection here. Mangostar (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another comment: Here is a 2003 book on this topic and another book that is forthcoming in July. The 2003 book suggests a title: "techno fashion"? Mangostar (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been a popular topic for more than a decade. See wearable computer, and cyborg when there are moving parts involved. No middle ground to scope out a new article. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a broader article is needed, but I do think what is happening recently is different that what has gone on before. See the blurb here for one author's take. I think that the difference is that designers are becoming more involved in this for aesthetics' sake. Wearing a dress that changes shapes because it's pretty is different than wearing a computer and different than cyborgs. Mangostar (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case the article should be on whatever the enabling technology is. Current fashion is inherently hard to deliver as solid unbiased facts. And the designers will never all agree to call it I-Wear. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a silly rationale, in my opinion. Just because fashion is hard to write about doesn't mean it can't be done (see fashion journalism). Your logic could be extended to contemporary art and many other notable topics. This is a constellation of related technologies that are being used in related ways by a variety of designers, so unified article should exist. We shouldn't hack the fashion article up because Wikipedians care much more about technology than fashion (revealing my irritation with systemic bias on wikipedia). Mangostar (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - IWEAR was a Paris fashion show, not the fashion that is described in the article itself. The one-sentence lede (article? The rest are links) actually says nothing about what it actually is. It is almost a collection of clichés that leave the reader leaving with as much information as when he/she started reading it. B.Wind (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is not clear about its topic and has little to say about it. Specific clothing technologies are best covered in specific articles such as Zipper and Velcro. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this just could be moved to something like the inverse of wearable computer (digital clothing? cyberfashion? j/k) because this isn't the most common term and I'm not sure there is one. This is an emergent concept. But the article as it stands needs much work and I'm not free to do it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to wearable computer, leaning towards Keep. The phrase is used in the more fashion-oriented circles when it comes to products/tech allong these lines, so it could allways be brought back.  I'm tempted to update the entry myself, but I'm just plain tired and as previously mentioned I can allways do it later. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.