Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Imaging Research

Wilhelm Imaging Research was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Wilhelm_Imaging_Research
To me they look like a really minor private company, not far from the one-man's-name type. See the 'Company history' on their website - not referring to any company's success, just the founders' previous professional careers, no significant Wilhelm Imaging Research's clients or achievments mentioned!. Referencing to their website from wiki as well as adding an external link to one of the founder's speech will just gain them IMO undeserved Google rating. Wiki hardly has full info on industry leaders. Adding a company like Wilhelm's, whose claim of idustry leadership is VERY questionable, then creates a false opinion of their importance and ranking in their respective industry field. The words used seem like taken from a usual, one of trillions company advertising brochures. Delete.    Oneliner 16:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have to wonder what your research consisted of, a simple Google search showed me that their clients include Hewlett-Packard, Epson, and Canon; they are called the definitive source on print longevity and the leading worldwide independent image permanence laboratory; Wilhelm is described as widely acknowledged to be one of the world's foremost independent experts on the light fading stability of digital and photographic color images and a pioneer of photo archivality testing.  Even a simple look at the first page of their website, which you claim you visited, shows that they are referenced by PC World, Byte magazine, US News & World Report, The Washington Post Magazine, et cetera.  So I'm very puzzled how you claim both that "to me they look like a really minor private company" and that their "claim of industry leadership is VERY questionable"; a claim does not become "VERY questionable" just because you can't bother yourself to investigate it.  Now as it happens, Wilhelm does have its critics, most notably Kodak, which wishes that Wilhelm wasn't an industry leader, and that Wilhelm's testing procedures were not the ones used by ... ah, almost everybody except Kodak.  Why?  Well, it could have something to do with Kodak preferring to use its own private testing procedures, which only subject the subject to about one-quarter of the light-stress, and then claim 15 times the longevity that Wilhelm testing does.  But, of course, that wouldn't have anything to do with the existence of this VfD, because then the correct response would clearly be to include Kodak's claims against Wilhelm in the article...  not delete the article and thus implicitly endorse the 'false opinion' that Wilhelm Imaging Research is not regarded as an industry leader by anyone except Wilhelm Imaging Research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for same reasons as above. If PC World, Washington Post, etc., know who you are, you're notable enough to be here. --Idont Havaname 23:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - extremely notable. While my initial stub isn't very good they have caused quite a few industry leaders to change their testing methodology (amongst them would be Kodak and Epson). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. What "industry speech" did I link to?! I linked to Wilhelm Research's main page (as you would for a company) and to an article in the The Sydney Morning Herald on how they've exposed Kodak's testing methodology. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. And thats my final answer.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 01:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: DCEdwards1966 04:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: he is rather well known in Germany Lectonar 09:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.