Talk:Spread tow fabric

Article update

Donald Draper The page has been updated quite a lot since the deletion tag was put there. Sources has been cleaned by different people and all connections to manufacturers, resellers, or other parties linked to this technique is removed. COI not admitted or valid. Tried to improve the article after recommendations from other users. Reconsider deletion, May 31. Donald Draper (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the three sources in the article, one was an advertisement (the "Samba" website) and is not a reliable source. The best source is a book that contains a passing reference to this manufacturing process. I have removed unsourced text and original research, and adjusted the text to be consistent with this source and the other source, which discusses the agenda of a conference and whose reliability is questionable to say the least. There are three manufacturers of this process, and I added the names of all three. This and similar newly created articles, mostly speedy-deleted, have been characterized by a persistent effort to promote one of those manufacturers, Oxeon, which has been highly unfair to the other manufacturers.

At this point the primary issue is sourcing and notability. If more independent, reliable sources can't be found, I will propose this for deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I just noticed that there is a broader article, Composite materials, where this article definitely belongs. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Technical fabric is an even better choice for merger target. That is just a stub, however, and this one might tend to overwhelm it. One possible solution is to merge this article and Technical fabric into Composite materials. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Composite materials makes the most sense. I've proposed that Technical fabric also be merged into Composite materials. Technical fabric has been around for three years and remains a stub, either due to indifference or lack of sourcing. The logical solution is to merge this article and Technical fabric into Composite materials. Sorry for the flip-flopping, but I got involved in this article because of my new page patrolling, not because of a fascination with fabrics. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what this stuff is, but it doesn't say that it's a composite materials, so I don't think it should be merged with composite material. If a merger does need to occur why not tow? Wizard191 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Spread Tow is a technique, Spread Tow Fabrics is a material used in composites. Beforethinking (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

That's what I had thought too.

I'm glad we are getting knowledgeable editors looking at this article. My aim here is to find an alternative to deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion would be a pity, merger is OK. The technique is quite unique so it could be considered a subject for a separate article. But I have no solution on the sourcing problem. Seems like most parts of the documentation on the subject comes from involved companies, which is common with "new" techniques. What alternatives are there for improving sourcing on this article? Beforethinking (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I've looked hard and found little that is not corporate sponsored. What disturbed me in particular is that one company's process was being aggressively pushed, the other two not mentioned at all. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand: Technomax and Harmony are mainly manufacturing machines that can make Spread Tow Fabrics, Oxeon produces and sell the actual material Spread Tow Fabrics. I think that makes the difference in why Oxeon comes up more often when searching on Spread Tow Fabrics. The technique itself was invented by Oxeon related Dr Nandan Khokar according to:http://www.oxeon.se/index.php?page=about-oxeon. Is written work by Dr Khokar about the technique acceptable as source, by being inventor, even though there is a company connection? Beforethinking (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the now-deleted Oxeon article, written by Oxeon itself, were those claims made, and neither is any of what you say substantiated by the link that you provide. All that indicates is that the Oxeon process was founded by Khokar. The other two manufacturers are described here[1] as having different processes, and nowhere is it stated in this source that Oxeon invented the process. Oxeon receives only a glancing, one-sentence reference while the other two are described first, indicating that, if anything, it came last. If he has a scientific paper on his process I imagine it would be usable, if appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, but something self-published on the Oxeon website or some other self-published source would not qualify under WP:V. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, regarding sourcing. To spread a tow and weave with tapes instead of tows is the overall technique, the process of how the tow is spread can be made in some different ways, as the book also states. Then there are difference between those who can only make Spread Tow Tapes and those who can also weave the tapes into a fabric. Scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal, I will link if I find any about the technique. Beforethinking (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another company that does it,a Japanese firm, and maybe this one too.[2]. But my take on this is that it's just too technical and esoteric to get much coverage in reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sakaiovex makes Spread Tow. Core Composites makes flat tow, which is a different technique. The difference lies in the spreading and weaving with tapes instead of tows. Spread Tow provides better mechanical properties than flat tow, although they look the same from a distance it is different techniques. Beforethinking (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Found new sources from N. Khokar, some journals and a conference related paper. Did not remove any of the tags of the article, but the article is improved now I think. Please help correct formatting if I missed anything. Beforethinking (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Improved the text further. As far as I can see the article seems properly built and sourced. Removed tags and found use the sources even more.Beforethinking (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)