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 and stub to remove how-to manual material and self-promotion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuji transfer and Watergraph[edit]

Fuji transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Watergraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable photographic technique. Fuji transfer is more an how-to guide than an article. Both are really just spam for Balazsy who is also up for AfD. -- RHaworth 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --RFBailey 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More Balazsy spam. Realkyhick 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it should be deleted because it is simply a definition and description of the Fuji transfer process and is in keeping with the similar entry "Polaroid Transfer"Pbpix 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Pbpix's point. Ventifax 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There should be an article, but this content is not appropriate. Stubbify, perhaps.
• Keep Describing something is not a how-to. Stubify Fugi Transfer as it is unsourced.--Dacium 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Ben 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per point made by Pbpix. Besides this process has received numerous non-trivial revues in photographic magazines. Alf^Photoman 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - both need a major rewrite but appear to describe a plausible technique. I think a 'citation needed' and/or 'expand' tag would have been a more constructive way to go first. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:04, 8 April 2007 (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.