Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory


 * 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. I double-checked as well, and note that it has no additional references or indication of notability that would make it appear that the policy based concerns of those recommending deletion are based on missing information. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparently non-notable company; references provided are peripheral to the subject (Kodak - support labs, Google books - rem-jet backing removal} or unreliable (Facebook, cinematography.com forum). I have searched Google web and news using the link above for reliable sources and found only Facebook, a few blogs and link-farms. The article was previously prod-deleted and recreated by author Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable company. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Have any of you bothered to look at the "Dwaynes Photo" article? This is a film lab.  It's little wonder there isn't any information available other than "link farms" online.  Just as Dwayne Photo provided a unique service in North America, this organization does so as well.


 * As to non-notable links, if someone could *RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE* all the links, proper formatting in there were far better than what I was able to salvage from the cache. The editor that brazenly deleted my work has a comment page full of angry complaints from over a dozen articles taht he deleted without discussion.


 * Now, all of a sudden, there is a rash of judgment because I took steps to restore the article what I could find when I got no response to my criticisms of hte original action.


 * This business provides a notable, one-of-a-kind service. Frankly what was done to it by a non photographer BTW, is tantamount to vandalism.  Maybe the articles were poorly written, but they were better than nothing.  There are now huge gaping holes in process ECN-2, process SFW-XL, Seattle Filmworks, and information about the three other labs that originally provided this service going back to the 1980s.


 * Anyone who has no knowledge of photographic processing, frankly, isn't qualified to judge the worth of this article. So, Nartolovehinata5, Bafflegab, I am not sure, unless I misread your background as to why you are involved in this article at all.  The original editor who deleted it similarly has no photographic background.


 * I move that the article be kept until a SUITABLE FIELD OF PHOTOGRAPHIC EDITORS on Wikipedia are given an opportunity to vet this article. Others should be excluded, and before anything else is done, the original article with proper links and all of the supplemental info should be recovered by the original party who deleted them without proper opportunity for discourse


 * SAVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.154.66 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems hard to find any sources outside Facebook, so probably not notable. It also seems that the text has been copied and pasted from some unidentified Mediawiki wiki (see how footnotes such as [1], [2] and [3] appear in the article but without clickable links to the footnotes section), so the text might not be free, and even if the original Mediawiki wiki is free, Wikipedia's reuse of it might not be legit since no original authors are credited (a requirement in most free licences). The logo, File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg, does not look like a typical logo. It is used on the Facebook page, but there doesn't seem to be any statement saying that it really is the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stefan: I had to copy-paste it from a cache of the original article.  The editor who made hundreds of deletions last week can't be bothered to answer my repeated requests for the original code.  I have permission to use the logo, and it's on their business card.  IDK why it is an issue being used in an article about the company.  I'm not using it in an ad to sell shoes.  Numerous other company logos like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kodak, Ford, are all used without issue.  As to there not being any sources, it's a film lab with a limited internet presence.  I invite you to look up "RGB Labs" on Wayback machine, for a similar example.  To my knowledge, they and Dale (which stopped processing in September 2009) were the last companies anywhere in North America making movie positives from negatives and doing still processing of ECN-2 film.


 * In a target market with nearly half a billion people, I don't see how that is not a notable company.


 * See my article on "Tasma" for similar use of a company logo, and see "Dwaynes Photo" (which I played no part in, but inspired me to write articles for Tasma, Double Exposure) for examples as to why this is notable. They also provid(ed) a service that was unique in North America.  50.4.154.66 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not questioning the use of a logo. I am only questioning whether the image really is a logo at all. If the company has "limited Internet presence", this could suggest that the company isn't notable, but maybe it has major presence in some other medium? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. · I'd like to add that Wikipedia does not require editors to have specialized knowledge about topics that they change, and that such knowledge is not required to recommend articles for deletion. Anyone can edit this encyclopedia—the restriction of writers to experts is not a feature of this project. NTox · talk 00:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply to ISO Guru / 50.4.154.66: I understand that you are annoyed by the previous prod deletion and by this nomination and discussion. Nobody is doing this to annoy you, so please don't take it personally. You are encouraged to add references from reliable, third-party sources that show how this company is notable; you can include off-line media - we're not restricted to internet sources. Please also read the notability guidelines. Although 'other stuff exists' isn't a valid argument, your mention of Dwayne's Photo prompted me to look at that article and I see you're correct about the state of the references there - the Wichita Eagle is about the only relevant and reliable source included. However, a brief Google search found | this article from The New York Times in fifth position. Nothing like that appeared when I searched for "Double Exposure Ltd. Laboratory", otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? By the way, I know a fair bit about film photography. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've taken another look at this discussion, as well as the opportunities for references. To ISO Guru / 50.4.154.66: I'd like to add that the concept of notability on Wikipedia does not depend on any of our own opinions about the importance of this company. It's about whether or not the company has been noticed by independent sources. It is theoretically possible that a company be the most influential one in photography; but if it is not noticed by independent sources, it is not notable according to this encyclopedia. This is a difference of definition, and I understand that it can be frustrating. At this moment, I have not observed substantive coverage about Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory in sources beyond cursory discourse in Facebook, blogs, and online forums. Unfortunately, the community does not trust these kinds of sources. For these reasons, I vote delete. If deleted, remember that the page can be recreated if independent, comprehensive coverage can be asserted. And—for the record—I am a photographer by trade. NTox · talk 06:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that because this company doesn't have a newspaper article, and that its main page is on Facebook, it should be deleted? ECN-2 processing isn't something the public cares about, nor does it have a song written about it, but it accounts for the majority of color film exposed and printed every year. My objection is that this article was deleted and a hack-job version is being critiqued.  Baffle gab 1978:  I see YOU were the one who deleted the article originally.  Therefore, I think it is only fair that you restore it to the ORIGINAL FORM so that that version can be cleaned up and then voted upon. If a lack of a newspaper article is going to eliminate this section, then delete it right now, I highly doubt that any Ohio newspapers have written about this company, nor any about the just-as-notable RGB labs, Dale labs.  That, frankly, doesn't make the sole provider of a service any less notable.  Nor would two or three companies (as Seattle Filmworks, RGB, Dale, and Signature Color were all offering this service at one time) make it any less noticeable.  Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper/Seven UP are all considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, ISOGuru, thanks for your response. First of all, all that we're asking is that you provide evidence of the alleged notability of Double Exposure Ltd. I didn't delete the first version of this article, I nominated it and SFW-XL for PROD deletion, and they were duly deleted a week later by an administrator whom you've already contacted. I'm not an administrator so I can't pull your original articles out of the dung heap. The best I can suggest is that you might be able to find it on the Wayback Machine. If a company hasn't received adequate coverage in reliable, third-party sources in any media, the article is seen as original research and can be nominated for deletion. If I sold chocolate teapots from a market stall, would it be notable? No - unless somebody wrote about it and published it in a reliable source! Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a popular opinion forum, nor is it a place for generalized, unsubstantiated judgements by those who aren't experts on the subject. Bafflegab, you say you know a "fair bit about photography."  What if anything do you purport to know about photographic processing?  I did make a thorough search of your contributions and frankly see nothing notable that you've contributed in that regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to wave my credentials under everyone's noses - but is five years of silver-gelatin printmaking, monochrome and C-41 developing and RA-4 printmaking good enough for you? I've also done E-6 developing and Ilfochrome/Cibachrome printmaking, although more years ago than I care to remember. I'm not a single-subject editor - I work on a wide variety of articles, not just photography ones. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you are saying is that ECN-2 film needs to be discontinued, so this company can get a similar newspaper article, so that it can justify an article. Film is only newsworthy after it is already discontinued?  I've read books going back into the 1970s that specifically mentioned the types of services described in this article and mentioned them specifically.  I will post those sources here as proof that the services are unique, unusual, and worthy of reference along with the SFW-XL process, the Seattle Filmworks company (yes, even as *only the biggest* of four companies offering this service at one time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now you're putting words into my mouth - I never said anything of the sort! It's Double Exposure Ltd. that requires sourcing, not other company's services. IIRC from that article, SFW-XL was just Seattle FilmWorks' name for Kodak's ECN-2 process. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But I am not satisfied that waiting for the New York Times article on the demise of yet another photographic process is an adequate recommendation. Further, I am going to restate that several of the contributors here have contributed absolutely nothing to photographic content on Wikipedia.  I will post a list of those of you who are posting here butare not in my opinion qualified to voice an opinion one way or another. I'd be happy to hear your responses to the contrary.  It is far easier to destroy than to create.  Instead of reading some books, learning the field and cleaning up, expanding upon these articles, you are out to achieve editor points.  Bafflegab:  Do you deny you brag about your ruthless editiing? Do you deny that you've made absolutely no attempt to restore this article SFW-XL, any of the other links you purged, to their original forms for fair evaluation?  Do you think this is a fair way to evaluate an article, to force the author who had to copy-paste it from an old cache on Yahoo!  defend poor grammar and no sources when those sources were deleted by YOU?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISOGuru (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ISOGuru, I'm not out to score points, I'm not denying anything and I'm not taking your bait. And you can post a list of post offices in Pennsylvania for all I care. I think this discussion is a fair way of achieving community consensus about the deletion or retention of the article. Finally I'll say this once again in bold, just in case you missed it: All that's being asked of you here is that you show us how Double Exposure Ltd. is notable.. As for my editing - yes I'm ruthless and I'm proud of it! :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't interpret that as bait, rather a repeated call for you to restore the article to its original form so it can judged fairly, and for you to explain what your knowledge is of photographic processing, finishing, and laboratory work. I've gone through your huge list of edits and find nothing relating to this field.   I appreciate, Gene, that this has at least been pointed in the right direction now.  I think this article only has a chance for fair critique if the links to SFW-XL, Seattle Filmworks, and the original form the article took were restored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.154.66 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ISOGuru, I identify with your concerns about this article. Remember: we are not trying harm it or Double Exposure, Ltd. by discussing its notability. All of our interests are in improving the encyclopedia. The fact here, however, is that Wikipedia is built upon the notion that every assertion can be verified against a reliable source, so readers can be convinced that we are telling the truth. When a topic cannot be substantially linked to reliable sources like books, scholarly journals, magazine articles, etc., it is not considered notable according to this community, regardless of its actual influence in the world. Note that our assessments about the notability of this company are irrelevant to the quality of the actual article . While a prior version of your article may have been editorially stronger, the assessment about whether or not Double Exposure, Ltd. has been noticed by independent sources was made outside of the article by searching for mentions of it in literature outside of Wikipedia.
 * I'd like to say again that a shining component of Wikipedia is the fact that it is open to everyone. Appeals for review solely by topic experts in this discussion will do no good here, because it violates our core principle to allow anyone to edit. I'd also like to add that while the inclusion of information about ECN-2 film and so on in this article is a welcome context, the article is primarily about Double Exposure, Ltd., which means that the majority of sources need to characterize that company in order to establish notability. As important as this topic may ultimately be, your statement that "ECN-2 processing isn't something the public cares about" speaks to the fact that this encyclopedia probably should not have an article about the company just yet. NTox · talk 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article was deleted, and the original authors of this move, Fastily and Baffle gab 1978, have made numerous attempts to discredit the article, yet refuse to restore it to its original form. They also seem to feel that reputable industry communities, such as Eastman Kodak's webpage, cinematography communities, and the company's webpage being on Facebook aren't worth credit, yet Google searches for a mostly on-paper organization constitute the sum of human knowledge on this entity.


 * I'm still confused as to why a unique process, unique facility, and the sole remaining full service processor and printer of these films is nominated for deletion. Let's at least restore the article to level footing before any further judgement takes place.  I notice the link section is missing several of the original sources.


 * I request that this discussion be placed on *indefinite hold* until the article is restored to its original form along with all the links that were deleted from it. --2012-02-27T18:42:37‎ 50.4.154.66/ISOGuru


 * Comment. I have restored the original contents of "Baffle gab1978"'s rationale for the deletion request as of 02:40, 25 February 2012, deleted by 50.4.154.66 on 2012-02-27T18:42:37‎. Also, I have moved 50.4.154.66's text newly inserted at the top of the discussion to where it (hopefully) belongs in the thread, because otherwise it becomes impossible to follow the discussion.
 * 50.4.154.66/ISOGuru, you must not edit/alter other people's comments, in particular not if it changes the meaning. This can very easily lead to a block. Let's assume it was a mistake for now.
 * Further, please try to fix your browser cookie problems so that you are not logged out for most of your edits. It's hard to follow your edits, if you are editing under various IPs such as User talk: 50.4.154.66, User talk:75.13.44.113, User talk:70.62.196.146, User talk:74.199.103.79, User talk:70.62.196.146, User talk:75.118.66.209 instead of under your account name ISOGuru. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have restored the original edits to the article from back in 2011. The version that was deleted the last time can be found here.  Note that the references given are just the same ones that are in the new version, so it doesn't really make a difference to this debate.  None of the references establish notability per Wikipedia's criteria.  Merely being the only company to offer a service does not confer notability unless there are reliable sources verifying the fact (and even then it could just be a fact with no particular importance).  Even if it's a really important service or a really awesome service, etc.  This has nothing to do with being an expert in the subject.  So yes, if there are no reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the subject, it will probably not end up with an article in Wikipedia.  ...  disco spinster   talk  05:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for ISOGuru. You write above Instead of reading some books, learning the field and cleaning up, expanding upon these articles, you are out to achieve editor points. Putting aside my unseemly appetite for editor points, which book should I (we) read to find out more about this company? NB not to find out more about the film or its development, but to find out more about this company? (Page numbers too, please.) Or which magazine article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (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.