Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dischromatics Ltd


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dischromatics Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company. Has only one suitable reference (own website) the rest being facebook or myspace or blog pages. No google hits beyond these self-publishes sources, or googlenews hits. Website does not suggest notability, only one location in South Wales. Does not appear to be a multi-chain or national/international company. SGGH ping! 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that with some rewording and some other sources, this page will be suitable as it is a company that has been around a very long time and that distributes all over Europe --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█  █▄▄ 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Could you please find some sources, then? And please, for the love of god, tone down your signature. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but this AfD is completely unnecessary - it's already being CSDd. SSGH, can I request that you wait until all other options are exhausted before AfDing in the future? Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I do not view the article as being an outright CSD candidate - hence AfDing it. SGGH ping! 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dischromatics pioneered a technique to allow drying of ink on 5,25" floppy disks, and as such was the only company in the World offering this at that time. Sources are naturally difficult to find online due to the timing of this innovation and it being surpassed quickly by the 3,5" diskette.  Hard copy sources are being sought.  I hope this clarifies the relevance of this article. (SpencerGJ)
 * Delete. This is apparently a business that manufactures DVDs, CDs, and floppy discs.  While these are ultimately consumer products, the process of their manufacture really isn't something that the end consumer really engages in.  This kind of business really can't support a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my previous comment regarding an innovation with regards to a print method (ie to prevent smudging of inks), from Wikipedia rules etc I understand this development in the floppy disk market right at the beginning of the 1990's is worthy of documenting the history of. (spencergj)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.80.249 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added much of the detail surrounding the innovative process and how this fitted in with the manufacture of the time. If it still felt such an innovation holds no place within the Encyclopedia, please could you explain why.  Or, if further details are required, please could these equally be pointed out so they might be addressed.  Much appreciated.  (spencergj Spencergj (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment I think some work should be done with the author to give better assistance in future article building. We don't need to drive people away. However as it stands the article should be deleted due to notability inclusion criteria. NJA (t/ c)  10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks NJA but what is the "Notability Inclusion Criteria" and how does it relate to us? Is our World-first innovative technology deemed not worthy of note in an encyclopedia such as this?  Would you be able to explain why not?  Many thanks for your assistance. (80.229.42.139 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The general notability guidelines can be found here and the specific guidelines relating to companies can be found here. Kind regards, Nancy  talk  18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nancy, that is of great use. Might I also ask how in our case I can nominate independant sources when, due to the timing and short-lifespan of the innovation in question, there is nothing of great note on the internet, indeed THIS resource will in all likelihood by the first document of this type?  Thanks once again (spencergj 87.114.80.249 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * My pleasure. Whilst it is helpful for reliable sources to be available online it is by no means mandatory as that would rule out the vast majority of printed works - contrary to what some people may think, history did not commence on 6 August 1991. having said that, I do hope that your comment above refers to the first online document of this company as if you mean the first ever document then that would pretty much confirm that Dischromatics fails the notability requirements. Nancy  talk  19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Touché!!!! No, we have been in extistence for 20 years and have many hard-copy and online references, just not relating to our major innovation in online form.  However we have quite a number of physical examples of our work - can I photograph these and upload them somewhere?  Would that help at all? (spencergj 87.114.80.249 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (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.