Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet cleaning


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wet cleaning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Wet cleaning", I think, is "doing laundry" as in a standard washing machine or by hand. "Wet cleaning" is not a usual term for this concept, but I think the point was to differentiate it from dry cleaning. The article currently is not citing sources. The sources cited are not being cited in a way that suggests they define the concept of wet cleaning.

For this article to remain I would expect to see a source cited which clearly defines the term.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * EPA Fact Sheet on Wet Cleaning - this is a strange source. It is presented by the US government, yet it does not clearly state what wet cleaning is. This is one of the dead links in the article. I would not call this an WP:RS because it seems to be a project of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. That organization does not seem to have published stable content on wet cleaning - see their report. Whatever wet cleaning means is not clearly defined either by the EPA or by this organization which wrote the paper published by the EPA.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about this process? Could you share any leads for sources?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the context of this article the term is used to refer to professional cleaning methods that don't use chemical solvents, the most common of which is perchloroethylene). Environmental groups have put considerable effort into exploring whether these alternative methods are cleaner than perc and whether they can be used on delicate garments (the kind that often carry a "Dry Clean Only" label) without shrinking or otherwise damaging the clothes.  Searches produce a lot of technical content and over 1000 pages at epa.gov.  Some of this is promotional or otherwise of unclear reliability. But some examples of news coverage include a 2004 NPR story ; Chicago Sun-Times ; Oakland Tribune ; Boston Herald ; Los Angeles Times ; Washington Post . --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Retract nomination keep I no longer agree with my original deletion rationale. has provided evidence which persuades me to think this concept is discussed in reliable sources and is notable. I am not sure of the process at this point. No one else has commented, propose keep and archive this discussion on the talk page to prevent this from happening again and document the discussion.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:56, 12 January 2016 (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.