Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffenol


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Caffenol

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Concern was: This article has no referneces and no reliable references can be found, just blogs, self-published websites and forum posts. Non-notable subject, it should not have an article on Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's one potentially reliable source and some brief video coverage from MAKE. —  C M B J   10:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though I was the one who PRODed the article as non-notable since it had no refs then and I could find none at that time, it has since been twice re-written and sources added since. I have just completely gone over the sources and removed all the blogs, forums and other WP:SPS junk and also combined paras, removed meaningless wording and generally cleaned it up. Since it does have a couple of reliable sources now I believe it should be kept as it meets WP:GNG now. The Williams academic paper is reliable, but it is troubling that while it deals with caffeine-based developing it does not use the term caffenol at all in the paper. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Caffenol IS WITHOUT QUESTION a common photographic term in the alternative process community! It is VERY easy to determine this.  Further, blogs in the case of matters of art or performance should definitely be considered when they detail technical procedure, since in many artistic communities they are the primary means of communications.  (i.e. bugzilla and similar packages/formats used for documentation of software development, etc...)DrWhatIKnow (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) - further, I would like to formally complain that user eeekster has on several occasions nominated pages I have written for 'speedy deletion' without regard for the informational content and as such is abusing his/her position.  I DO NOT WRITE WIKI'S FOR A LIVING! I have a life, and a quite busy one at that, and do not have time to constantly revisit wiki to ensure my work is not deleted.  I have not kept my work off-line, and find that I have had to recreate it several times.  My page on NARCO Avionics (the first company in the US to standardize avionics width, and set standards which are followed to this day, was deleted over-night by eeekster!  I am not happy.  I have been a long time contributor to wiki, and am seriously considering finding better use of my time and money!DrWhatIKnow (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:DrWhatIKnow: this discussion is on whether the Caffenol article should be kept, it is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to make "kitchen sink" complaints about everyone and everything about Wikipedia that annoys you. I would strongly suggest you re-write your comment above to be on topic here or else it will most likely be completely discounted by the closing admin. You should stick to policy and guideline arguments and avoid emotional opinions. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions will help you shape your points. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, this seems to have shaped up nicely into a decently sourced stub since the PROD. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (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.