Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent clothing (2nd nomination)


 * 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 -- JForget  22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent clothing
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

1. It has no references. 2. because there is no such thing - it's OR 3. It is a speculative technology that doesn't exist. 4. No notability established. 5. nearly 18 months since no consensus at last AfD nom, and no improvement at all. 6. It can easily be summarized in one sentence in wearable computing article 7. Can find no references saying intelligent clothing is different from wearable computer. Tech = sensors as well as computers Yobmod (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It seems unrealistic at this point, and is written somewhat unencyclopedically, and doesn't conform to WP:CRYSTAL. Even though using a policy as a reason to delete it isn't good, I think that this technology is too far off in the future to be writing about it now. Even though it may exist, few, if any, people wear this type of clothing at the present. Plus, if it's been deleted before and it is still inappropriate to have it in the 'pedia, it should get deleted. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 10:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to be completely original research - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree. - tholly  --Turnip-- 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with redirect to wearable computing. The term has been thrown around a little bit in various articles , even a scientific conference report/book but in each case they refer to wearable computing.  Danski14(talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't like saying "per nom" but you really did give a grand list of reasons for deletion! If this was a new article I'd suggest it could probably be sourced and tidied up, but it's been hanging around for so long that I suspect it's going nowhere. ~ mazca talk 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe sometime in the future this article will be useful, but for now not notable and WP:OR.  J  kasd  18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In January 2007, someone said, "It needs a lot of work..." Didn't happen.  Pure original reseearch, perhaps from someone who watched a marathon of The Jetsons.  Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 29 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.