Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modal (textile)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modal (textile)

Lacks encyclopedic potential and appears to be nothing but an advertisement dressed up like an encyclopedia entry. BenSamples 01:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely promotional material, complete with registered trademarks, lest we forget that we're supposed to go out and buy this stuff. Geogre 03:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs to be made NPOV, but this is an interesting substance of moderate commericial importance. ike9898 13:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisements. Scimitar 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisment, and I wouldn't be surprised to find it was copied from a promotional brochure somewhere. --Carnildo 22:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely keep. Being owned by a company doesn't make a new material unencyclopedic. Consider pharmaceuticals, for example. --Un focused 02:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May be important info. Vorash 08:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. JamesBurns 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Karol 11:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Since these votes were cast, I've made the article less POV. I think that the ® mark is setting off user's advertisement detectors but I really think that this is unwarrented. ike9898 13:28, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, thanks for the cleanup ike9898. Wonder if wp has a policy on ® marks. Kappa 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found it very helpful! Since my girlfriend bought a shirt form modal and I had no idea what it was. Just the fact that one kann

buy this material is no reason for deletion! Does anybody vote for the deletion of the Coke article?

Keep Granted, I wrote a hefty chunk of this article (so take that into consideration), but the fact its name IS a registered trademark, and thus to use that name to describe the fabric without said trademark is a violation of the trademark. The fact that Wikipedia is open source doesn't mean that it doesn't have to follow others' rules for their content, only that its rules for its OWN content are lax. And no, I didn't copy this... I wrote after purchasing some sheets of the fabric, and did a bit of research on it. - Loweeel 00:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but add more detail. Doesn't Modal have any deficiencies?

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.