Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance fabrics


 * 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 redirect to Technical textile. I am not sure why this has been relisted so often. It has been clear for some time that there is consensus not to keep this as an article, but that equally there was consensus to redirect it. Anyone who wishes to carry out the suggested merging is, of course, free to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Performance fabrics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term "Performance fabrics" was probably invented by the Marketing Dept at Gore-tex, as I recall. It actually has no defined meaning, as the main editor is finding out. This concern was highlighted by the reviewer at AfC a couple of years ago, and again by me quite recently.

None of the refs support the article, and I believe the subject unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * :Delete: The gallery of HUGE photos makes the article so, so much worse. Anything worth salvaging can be incorporated into Technical textiles, which has both Clothtech and Sporttech sections. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep: The article is vastly (albeit contentiously) improved from what it was when this discussion started. Still overly wordy and repetitious. I cut some of the fluffy sentences. Needs more trimming, but there now is a core worthy of being an article. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Technical textiles, or a new section created at that page. It would seem that most of the topic could be better covered under the more specific sections found there (sport or protective?). While I am trying to ignore the (ugh) formatting issues – on both pages even – and base my opinion on the content, I do not see any outcome other than delete, and it may be best to apply WP:TNT here and add any useful content to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Striking !vote, since to be honest, the other article has the same issues. I'm wondering if there's a better title for th page, but it isn't really something that would improve the page significantly.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

*Keep Page is a mess now, but the subject matter, isn't as 'bad' as the 'world's-leading-experts on everything' are claiming it to be. While I'm also not totally against a WP:TNT for this one.Ciao.Themessenger ofknowledge  write to me 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC). sockpuppet. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

*Keep. Hi, I started working on this page around two years ago, because I was unable to find a suitable definition for the term anywhere on Google, and with zero formatting skills about WikiMarkup or anything, I set about the task of creating it on my own, which has been, in hindsight, a terrible experience for me editing and using Wikipedia, in general, all of you are too patronizing and unhelpful that it's extremely difficult for beginners to learn. I've spent like a hundred hours, researching and editing the page, and the last few edits were just a desperate attempt to save the page, as is apparent from the oh-so-clumsy, aforementioned formatting, and I'm well aware of that.My frustration, I hope, is understandable. Talking about the subject now, I, as an industry professional believe that it's encyclopedic, although I'm aware that needs some strong and reliable backing sources .More on that later though. Final Note: The page could be renamed to Functional fabrics, or started all over again,I have sources on the page itself that could be helpful. Also I would have appreciated these inputs from all of you a lot more, if they were given to me on time so that I could've incorporated those into the page, earlier.ughh, whateverRajiv Sharma (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) sock master, sort of. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The gallery of large photos, which seemed to be the major objection from !voters so far, has been deleted. Performance fabrics is a much better, much more informative, far better cited, much less choppy, much less brand-promotional article than Technical textiles, so I see no reason to redirect to it or merge the articles. I myself objected to Performance fabrics three years ago (which is why it is on my watch list), but it has come along nicely. This current article is well cited and informative. The worst that can be said of it in my opinion is that has been mainly written by a single editor, who is a bit of an SPA, but he did not create the article or its title, and there is no indication of brand-promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Technical textiles. I fail to see how this article would be encyclopedic, it is full of marketing speak and trivia along "clothing is worn for comfort and protection" (doh). It does not tell you anything worth knowing about the subject matter (for example "Textile Auxiliaries" in Ullmann's, ). --46.189.28.247 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This IP has only edited for 13 days and has already gotten 17 warnings for disruptive editng and a block. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But, nevertheless, their observations in this case are accurate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't, and the IP is just trolling, as usual. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, but they've been blocked anyway. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge (after wielding a very large axe) to technical textiles.
 * Gore-Tex may have dreamt up the term 'performance fabrics', but it isn't unique to them. It is indeed poorly defined, but it is a term of art, which I've known since the 1980s. I remember a UK company called Courtaulds Performance Fabrics Ltd, formerly Fothergill and Harvey Ltd, which may now be the Performance Fabrics division of Courtaulds Aerospace Ltd or have been spun off as Fothergill Group. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Term of art = Jargon = Nonsense!!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jargon = useful technical shorthand for those involved in a trade or business ≠ nonsense. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When I worked as a chemist in the viscose industry, I used routinely to measure things like soda, cell, ballfall, and k-value (actually, k2-value, which used an S.S.54.2 filter pack; k1, which used an S.G.1 pack, was long obsolete), but only measured gamma-value once or twice. Gamma-value was a rarity, but everyone in the factory, including the process workers, knew what the other terms meant. Nonsense, eh? Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How does the use of Jargon in articles help inform our readership. Jargon should be explained, perhaps using reliable sources. Hang on, the term "Performance fabrics" shouldn't be covered in wikipedia using jargon, but reliable sources. Hang on, there aren't any to do that, as demonstrated in this article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly why 'performance fabrics', a term which our readers might come across in real life, should redirect to an article which explains what it means.
 * Sheesh, talk about WP:WIKILAWYERing! Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (I forgot to mention salt figure, which is or was a worldwide standard measurement in the viscose industry across several languages. I always asked more experienced analysts than I to measure it – the technique looked simple enough on paper, but was easy to get wrong if you didn't know what you were doing.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Last edits(deletes) by Roxy, the dog. barcus made the article incomplete ,Seems unfair and unjustifiable especially when he recommended the deletion of the subject article.Thanks Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I nommed this, there have been 98 edits to the article. I have made 9 of them, you have made 19. Isn't that a little hypocritical? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Roxy, the dog. barcus Please do not be so desperate to delete the things testing procedures were added just 30 minutes before and you deleted.Allow me to add verified sources at-least.why so hurry? ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for the editors who are watching these efficient deleting patterns.They will definitely come and save this page.I am hopeful and recording all discussions and your wrong doings.Expecting your reply on my recent edits .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles can be improved while they're being discussed at AfD; if removing content helps improve the article, then so be it. Instead of asking other editors to wait for you to add verified sources, perhaps it would be better for you to wait until you have all the proper reliable sources ready to go before adding the content. Anytime you add unsourced content to an article, there's always a risk that another editor will remove it; so, the way to stop that from happening is to find the sources first, get them ready and then add the relevant content to the article. Finally, you'll have a better chance of convincing others to keep this article if you focus on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep your comments focused on the article content, instead of trying to get them to focus on what you consider to be "wrong doings" committed by other editors. AfD discussions can sometimes get a little heated, but it's best to try to keep cool and focus on the matter at hand and not try to personalize things as explained in WP:GD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly (talk) Sir, I sincerely appreciate your advice and from now on I shall try my level best to maintain the things properly.I am not against removing the content but astonished the way things are happening,since I have seen other pages also,with another kind of remarks like Need improvement,need citation ,refs and so on.But here the things are getting deleted more promptly.See the logs.One more thing i am not very much familiar with all  editing skills.I did not want to write the way i am doing but i was forced to do so.Please accept my apology .Thanks and regards Rajiv Sharma (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an ill-defined industry buzzword and while there are fabrics which exist and which could be said to belong to this category, the term as a whole does not clearly define a set of fabrics. As a result we don't get decent RS discussing this topic and the article is a confection of original research and not encyclopedic. Some of the referenced material may be salvaged and moved to more specific articles. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Request continuous and instantaneous deletion  of recent edits( Users are adding ) and intentional trimming of the contents and refs( Which were valid for two years ) seems unjustifiable and discouraging .This is not the only article with un-encyclopedic name and with less sources, Article deserves a fair chance of improvement. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see there are Bot suggested articles which need more serious attention since they are ignored with a long time. The contents of Performance fabrics are not that bad and they are presently happening and reshaping the distressed textile Industry. Kindly consider.
 * Suggestion one name change can save this article options from my side
 * 1) Clothtech
 * 2) Functional Textiles

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Thanks and regardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Rajiv, have you changed your iVote? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My vote is same what it was Keep,The article is more improved now .Appreciate your contributions.Thanks and RegardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But you have just said you want to change the name. That is not Keeping the article. Please amend your vote. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * My vote is to Keep only. Article is completely changed when it was tagged ,please change your opinion also .Yes I am open to change the name if the judges and all are still dissatisfied with the revised version.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It might help avoid any possible confusion if you struckthrough your previous !vote and moved this up to the same spot. See item 6 under "When participating, please consider the following".-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. David notMD (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Technical textile and clean up the resuling article. I'm agnostic about the title of the merged article, it should of course comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge seems like lot of wp:original research, Would also suggest to merge with Technical textile and also clearly describe who calls it and by whom, it rather depicts a loose marketing term and even the pictures or being used from other textile related article showing lack of anything new Shrikanthv (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep after doing some research it seems the word " performance fabrics" eventhough a colloquial word does meet wiki:notability and there is enough content available to keep this as an article by itself Shrikanthv (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the ongoing discussion, ongoing edits, mixed !votes and multiple revoked !votes, a relist seems more than warranted

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The title might better as "High-performance fabrics" or "textiles" -- see high-performance plastics, for a similar concept. Anyway, here's source which demonstrates the notability of the topic -- Engineering of High-Performance Textiles.  Myself, I'm quite liking the non-iron shirts which I discovered recently.  There doesn't seem to be an article about those yet so I'm going to make a start... Andrew D. (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that source does not support this article, as it is about textiles, not fabrics, a vast difference. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics. This is not a vast difference; it's closely related.  The source covers this relationship, "Engineering of High-Performance Textiles discusses the fiber-to-fabric engineering of ... before presenting the engineering fabrics and architectures needed for ...  Properties covered include moisture absorption, pilling resistant knitwear, fire retardant fabrics, camouflage fabrics, insect repellent fabrics, filtration, and many more. ..." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics." This is abject nonsense - what is the rest of the source like? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have refrained from removing much of the extant article for non reliable sourcing while this discussion is continuing. I am also curious as to who was the original contributor of this article, as the wikipedia software seems to think it was User:Themessengerofknowledge who created it, having issued a notification to them whenm I nominated this for deletion. I had believed that Rajiv Sharma originally wrote it, according to his user talk page. Do you guys have any explanation? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, fabrics and textiles are one and the same.You can find various resources that could help you with understanding that.One more thing, You should limit the use of the word nonsense, as it's highly condescending and, even downright degradingWP:WIKILAWYERing!. Also, this forum does not serve to satiate your personal "curiosities". As for the page creation mess-up, I am confused too.
 * ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, did you create the page, or the messenger? That's an easy question for you not to avoid.
 * Also anybody who thinks that Fabrics and Textiles are the same thing ought to take some sort of textile technology course, as it is nonsense to say that. good grief. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Roxy, the dog. There is no question of avoiding, History is there and software is also there.

@ Fabrics_ Everybody can understand that you do not own that course,For your information there is only one article which defines both i.e.  Textiles  and for fabrics the message is like Fabric" redirects here. For other uses, see Fabric (disambiguation) and Textile (disambiguation). on Wikipedia.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment As there seems to be some confusion about the words, let's check the OED:


 * textile n. A woven fabric; any kind of cloth.
 * fabric n. A manufactured material; now only a ‘textile fabric’, a woven stuff.


 * So, they have come to mean much the same thing. The source Engineering of High-Performance Textiles is therefore quite valid and, as it clearly covers fabrics specifically, we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Excluding the nominator and a blocked sock, there has only been one participant since the last relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC) As I write, the ivote is divided as follows - keep 4, merge to TT 4 and Delete 2. I have not changed my mind that the article should be deleted due to a lack of any meaning that can be assigned to the term "Performance fabric." Note that the term is used by Marketing departments rather than technical ones, and we all should know how they work. (They will say anything at all to sell their product, truth, honesty and particularly reality do not get in their way) The article is more or less in a similar state to it was when I nominated it - the stupid huge gallery of pics was added after in a strange attempt to improve the piece. I would be happy to start again without the distraction of the sockpuppet if that would help provide a clearer result. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Technical textiles. While most of the sources in the article are crappy buzzwordy marketing style articles, there are a few papers in there that discuss functional/technical fabric that could be useful in Technical textiles. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * comment. I think it is incumbent on me to point out a few things now that the sockpuppetry is over. I was confused at first and thought that he was a student, parroting badly stuff from his textiles lectures, as what he writes appear to be lecture notes in between unconnected, unenglish babble. (WP:CIR applies to competence in language too.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.