Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct to garment printing

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 no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct to garment printing

Spam magnet with only primary sources--no third-party references, no incoming links. I tried to get WikiProject Textile Arts to take this on, but didn't get a response. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Normal people and the industry call this process screen printing. Someone trying to create a non-notable version of this process and spam it out to the world calls it by this name. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Screen printing is not the same as injet printing with no screens:"Screen printing is a printing technique that uses a woven mesh to support an ink-blocking stencil. The attached stencil forms open areas of mesh that transfer ink as a sharp-edged image onto a substrate. A roller or squeegee is moved across the screen stencil, forcing or pumping ink past the threads of the woven mesh in the open areas." Johnbod (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting content and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No thirdy part sources and verging on spam dressed as an article. Without third party sources it fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mostly out of curiosity, I tried to read up on this. This seems to be a legit subject, definitely different from screen printing, and the term seems to be in wide use. Reliable sources are hard to find, but I think I've found at least a couple.
- www.wearablesbusiness.com 13 articles found when searching on "direct on garment", at least half look useful. Site seems to cover all aspects of the apparel business, with no apparent link to the direct to garment industry:
- Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management at NCState. I found two articles with the keyword "digital textile printing": [1] and [2]. Seems to be a refereed journal, even.

The article probably needs serious help to be less spammy and better sourced, but I don't think it has any fatal flaws that can't be overcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest renaming to Digital textile printing (currently a redirect I just created), which seems to be used a bit more often in "serious" links and less often in spam links. I don't know the AFD etiquette for moving pages during an AFD, and anyway I believe I screwed up the possibility of a non-admin move with my clumsiness creating the redirect, but if the article is kept I'll suggest this at WP:RM. Digital textile printing now has two incoming links, btw, from Textile printing (new link, created by me) and from Dye-sublimation printer, a pre-existing red-link in an established article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (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.