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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fashiontech[edit]

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

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding FashionTech to the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Is it possible to link "Fashiontech" to "FashionTech"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisiszane (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aisiszane: You need to improve one of the articles to convince us that the subject is notable and has been covered in independent sources. If the article is kept, then we can worry about the title. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete makes no claim of notability for this neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per power-enwiki. In any case the concept (to the degree I can make it out) is already covered, in much better form, in Wearable technology#Fashion Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Neologism with out any evidence of widespread usage. It might be reasonable to recreate a redirect to Wearable technology#Fashion, as Nosebagbear suggested above, but I'm not even convinced we need that. —C.Fred (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say we need the redirect either - I can't imagine many people search this as a term and thus need to be redirected Nosebagbear (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Neologism sourced to bunch of unreliable and promotional sources. From the sources used it is clear, they are using Wikipedia in disguise to promote the website and the non notable coiner. How can you even coin something notable while you're not notable?. I also see no need of redirect, no evidence of popular usage–Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2018 (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.