Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle FilmWorks

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; discussion closed by nominator under WP:SNOW. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle FilmWorks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company; all referenced sources are either a) advertisements placed by this company (6,7), amateur homepages, forum posts or blogs (1,2,9,16,21), linkfarms (19,20) or are peripheral or irrelevant to the subject. My attempt to establish notability through reliable sources about this company has failed; I checked Google web and news searches and found nothing more substantial than casual mentions in reliable sources. Prod deletion was opposed; too many 'references' for speedy. This is part of a walled garden with Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory and SFW-XL - both of which I have prodded. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the article needs a ton of improvement. As I recently noted on the article's Talk page, I do think that Seattle FilmWorks was a notable company, but I also agree with the nominator that this notability has not yet been well-established by what's currently in the article. The article currently contains a lot of detail in the vein of WP:NOTHOWTO but doesn't yet show how this company was covered in independent reliable sources. However, quite a bit of such coverage exists, as suggested by the search results at GNews[1] and GBooks[2]. Unfortunately, digging through this material is complicated by paywall barriers, by the precarious state of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online archives, and because many of the Ghits turn out to be actual Seattle FilmWorks advertisements (as the article mentions, their print ads used to be everywhere). The Seattle Times archives are in somewhat better shape than the P-I's, and a search there[3] also produces hundreds of articles which may be helpful in explaining this company's one-time prominence in the film world. Here, however, is one clear example of such coverage: Cynthia Flash, "Photo Processor Using Net to Enlarge Its Base; Technology: Analysts say Seattle Filmworks' offering of pictures on disk shows its savvy marketing." Associated Press in Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1997. This article describes in detail how, as of 1997, Seattle FilmWorks was "a leader in mail-order photo finishing", "the first to offer both slides and negatives off the same roll", "the first photo processor to offer pictures on computer disk", "an anomaly in the photo finishing market", etc. Ominously, though, that 1997 article also mentioned, "Digital cameras, which allow people to load photographs directly from a camera into a computer, could render Seattle Filmworks' processing obsolete." Imagine that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough evidence that its a major company, and notable. That it is not in business now is irrelevant. WP covers the historical aspect of things also--that's one of the differences etween and encylopedia and a Directory DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per Arxiloxos. This consumer firm played a significant role in the period towards the end of real photography. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. The film was unique, the processing was unique and very popular in its time period. I did some basic research, plenty of articles. tedder (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to everyone for your comments, and especially to Arxiloxos for finding reliable sources I was unable to find. Now that notability is established and the result of this discussion is obvious, I'm closing it as Keep under WP:SNOW. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.