Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wratten 47B


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 03:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wratten 47B

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable? I've put this under science, but it might better be listed under "product" Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Should be listed under product as you thought. Anyway, I don't think this is notable enough to have it's own article. If we find this to be notable, then every other plastic used in optics should be notable which I don't think is the case.
 * Keep thanks to Edison's comments below. Some very persuasive arguments for notability, something I should have checked myself. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - In my opinion, and by a quick Google Scholar search, as shown here, it looks like several hundred other people also believe it is notable enough. Nice, short, to the point piece.  What more can we ask for out of an article.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst it is written about by many scholars, that does not immediately imply notability for Wikipedia. It is bound to be featured in loads of articles on Scholar since it's a commonly used plastic in the industry. However, looking at that Scholar search, none of the articles I look at straight off are about the product. Instead, they list it as something simply used experiments. If you can find a source that discusses the product rather than listing it, then I'd probably change my view on this. But as of now, in my opinion, I can't see any notability other than the fact it's commonly used. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree it does not imply notability, my reasoning is that the amount of cites actually bestows notability. If the item was not notable or under a different name, would not those individuals use a different product? Likewise, with regards to a commonly used plastic in the industry, isn't more of a fact that it is used as the standard to calibrate video, as the article points out?  With regards to articles discussing the product, isn't the actual use in experiments and noted in the works, as you pointed out, a discussion of the product, in and of itself?  notability is not how many words can be written about the subject, my contention is that the shorter more concise a piece is the better, rather is it notable or not.  I have not heard any arguments to persuade me differently at this point.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are over a hundred filters in this series, all documented in standard handbooks; most of them have been discussed extensively in photography books and the like, & they for long have been the standard series to which other manufacturers refer. This particular one has major uses. By the way, I think the usual form -- or at least the historically used form -- is gelatin, not plastic. DGG (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's sufficiently notable, and could fairly easily be expanded into a worthwhile article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not endorse articles for every filter made, but a recent photography book says this and 8 others are "The most popular traditional filters for black and white photography on film." I see this as a strong argument for notability. Other books go beyond some science writeup noting the filter was used in an experiment, and in fact discuss this filter, its manufacture, its properties and uses, however briefly include ,  ,  ,  , . It is used in vision research and in monitor calibration. The article could be improved by including information from Kodak publications. I'm sure there is info in some of the Kodak filter handbooks. Edison (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2008 (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.