This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This page is offered as a introduction to the alternative photographic process known as Caffenol. A process which I have been experimenting with for some time and which was NOT represented directly in Wiki. There are a number of Wiki articles which mention Caffenol, but none which explain what it is. I have attempted to rectify that by posting this page. For an article of so few words, it is remarkable that a citation list of over 20 references is considered to be in some way lacking. I have used the process, and have posted my knowledge based on that experience, as well as the cumulative experience of many, many others. The sources in the article are from the many that exist, including a published paper from a college paper and PhD. I fail to see how these constitute a lack of 'reliable sources'. Also, I had previously posted this: ==A Personal Note On Sources And Informational Content On This Page==
Photography is both an art and a science, and as such, many of the practices, knowledge and techniques of photography are without encyclopedic references and exist, instead, as 'community practices'. Without a governing body, or a codified set of practices, the arts are often developed through the open and free communication of ideas and concepts. That is the purpose of this page, to provide a framework for the understanding of Caffenol in it's context as an alternative process. As such, this page is and will remain a work in progress. It is compiled from years of experience in photographic and scientific experimentation and is offered as an introduction to the world of personal experimentation in the field. I have sought to provide as many references as possible, but in the field of alternative photographic process there are few unified sources, so the sources provided serve as a springboard to further research and investigation. Although some would argue that blogs are not reliable sources, the sources which I have used herein are used based on the principle of statistical correlation of content (i.e. they are chosen because the represent the majority of the community knowledge in the subject). Therefore I would encourage other Wikipedia authors to READ and UNDERSTAND the CONTENT and PURPOSE of this page rather than simply dismissing it on the basis of it's sources. Further, I should state again that this is a work in progress and that I will continue to refine and add to this page, and would encourage others to do so in a constructive and amicable way. - but it has been removed as 'personal notes do not belong on wiki'. This was not intended to be literally viewed as a personal note, but rather a statement of the general intent and character of the alternative photographic community from one of it's practitioners. As such I consider myself to be a source of information, but apparently I am not allowed to cite myself... go figure... DrWhatIKnow (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay I have done a complete clean up of the refs and removed the ones that are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have also combined the text and removed some that said nothing useful. Because it does have a couple of actual reliable refs I have indicated at the deletion discussion that the article should be kept. The tagged statements need refs added or they will be removed once the AfD is completed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Third paragraph appears to be self-contradictory - "...all based on preparations that contain caffeic acid (i.e., coffee or tea)...The chemistry of caffenol developers is based on the action of the reducing agent caffeic acid, which is chemically unrelated to caffeine" - sorry don't know enough about the chemistry to fix or clarify this. Chris (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
