Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance (textiles)


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  07:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Performance (textiles)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per last time raj created this. Tis a pure marketing term. -Roxy . wooF 19:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP:HEY, This article is about attributes of various textiles. Yes, I agree that initially, it lacked clarity. I am working on it. Admin please check the corrections. RV (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article explains the textile's performance under various conditions, moderate to extreme, that is not similar. The ability for basic functions and requirements of textiles (comfort and protection) are informed, not the way the nominator understands and projected. RV (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Performance fabrics was about "a segmented class of technical textiles"; the article was redirected to Technical textile. The first sentence of Performance (textiles): "Performance in textiles is the ability of textiles to respond against certain conditions and environments" - similar title but not the same thing. Also the nominator suggested in an edit summary "try an article about fabric testing" - this article is not specifically about testing, but it is about something that can be tested, not just a marketing term. Peter James (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If it’s about “attributes of various textiles”, and “explains the textile's performance under various conditions”, might it be more appropriate to include the information as part of the articles about those various textiles rather than a standalone article? Brunton (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Conservation and restoration of textiles and Textile manufacturing could be included in the articles about the various textiles for the same reason; similar to this article, there are aspects that don't relate to specific textiles. Peter James (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But nominator has different reason [] to delete it. RV (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as the topic is notable. There are numerous publications related to this topic. Perhaps it should be renamed to high-performance textiles, or performance-based textiles. Publications include academic articles and books eg . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:RAJIVVASUDEV left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this subject, I would guess because I have previously edited Textile. I would propose to condense this content somewhat and merge to textile, perhaps with some sourced note about manufacturers referring to "performance" in their promotion of their materials. Clearly the term is used in such a way that readers might expect to find content about it, and I see no reason to exclude discussion of the materials science of textiles from the encyclopedia. BD2412  T 06:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a marketing term. The subject deserves to be an independent article as per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG. RV (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as the topic is notable. .  While this term is used in marketing, it is a separate classification of fabrics.  No reason to delete.  No reason to merge.  WP:HEY WP:Preserve.  And some of the arguments above seem to be Ad hominem fallacy against the article's creator, which is no reason to delete.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Marketing people use terms, but terms don't always belong solely to marketing. For Wiki purposes, would need to demonstrate the term is primarily a term of marketing without other substantial usage. We are seeing good quality sources about the performance of textiles. Other materials, such as road surfaces, have a similar area of specialty where they observe and test wear of the material. Textiles would have this also, and if it's not called "performance", what is it called? -- Green  C  15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite what our sockpuppeteer says, this is a marketing term. the article, if kept, needs major surgery, and a name change to something like "Fabric Buying Specifications". -Roxy . wooF 16:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has moved on considerably from the few garbled sentences I tagged as Confusing on 13 June, but I'm not sure that we need both this article and Technical textile. They seem to overlap substantially. The book "Agro Textile" which is the source for the oddly-worded classification scheme used in that article has an introduction (page 1) saying "Technical textiles are textile material and products manufactured primarily for their performance and functional properties rather than aesthetic or decorative purpose", and I would think "performance" as described here is an attribute (or a whole set of attributes) of those technical textiles. (Although as a consumer of garments and household textiles I would think "performance" of fabrics would include washability, durability, crease-resistance, etc). But it's not an area in which I have any expertise - I only came across a whole lot of stub articles on different textiles lately while stub-sorting, which perhaps led me to look at other contributions by the same editor, leading me to template this one. "Performance in textiles is the ability of fabrics with that a material responds..." suggests either someone who cannot write clear English or someone who cannot be bothered to do so.   Pam  D  17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is nothing on the talk page to show that the article has been previously created and deleted ... if this is the case, it would be useful to see that history. Pam  D  17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, have now found Articles for deletion/Performance fabrics from 2018. Pam  D  17:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * this is pertinant, in my sandbox. I copied it from the Talk page of the original article. "... cannot write clear english ..." is accurate, and all I wish to say. -Roxy . wooF 20:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't take the bait. Hey! Are you really withdrawing? []. RV (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per n-grams, it appears to be a topic that's widely discussed in books for many decades. I'm sure it's a term used in testing, specification, buying, marketing, etc., but not just one of  those.  The deleted Performance fabrics was a narrower fuzzy marketing concept; this article is about the performance of all textiles, not  just those promoted as "performance".  Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An accurate assessment. The performance of a fabric is how it is defined, and applies to all fabrics, rather than just the usain bolt tight shorts taken in isolation, or the firefighters special proofed fabric. Harold Wilsons overcoat had a "special fabric" and we've most of us heard of Gore-tex which is just Gannex but a bit more developed. Every fabric has performance requirements ; Turtles all the way down. -Roxy . wooF 20:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What an assessment. We see you are the only one who thinks like that and there is a pattern . See Bolt (cloth)[], Ninon[], slopseller [] and Khes and Kesh is similar for them [], [], [],  Their views for Automotive textiles[] and so on . RV (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems to be a term used in the industry, and the article does a great job listing all the things something is tested for.  D r e a m Focus  22:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like  Dicklyon, I consider this article a great improvement over the eaerlier one. Certainly the term can be used in a promotional sense, but almost anything can==this  has a real meaning.  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment@, WP:VANDALISM. Even after warning on the talk page and revert, the nominator is deliberately harming the page  in question. Refs for the statement.  RV (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (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.