Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
delete
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
 
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
 
The result was '''Delete, at author's request''' --[[User:Stephen|<b>Steve</b> <sub> (Stephen) </sub>]][[User talk:Stephen|<sup> talk </sup>]] 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
===[[Diagonal method]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
{{#ifeq:Diagonal method|Diagonal method||<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method}}</ul></div>}}
:{{la|Diagonal method}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 21#{{anchorencode:Diagonal method}}|View log]])</noinclude>
Line 9 ⟶ 15:
*'''Delete''' Could be groundbreaking, but this is not where ground should be broken. - [[User:Richfife|Richfife]] 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 
* '''Delete''' until some discussion is generated in third-party sources that justifies the claims made. {{<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JulesH|JulesH]] ([[User talk:JulesH|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JulesH|contribs]]) 21:00, 21 May 2007}}</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
 
* '''Delete''' as original research, and usefully '''redirect''' term to [[Cantor's diagonal argument]]. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 16 ⟶ 22:
*'''Redirect''' to [[Cantor's diagonal argument]], for the time being. If the photographic method becomes notable in the future, we can recreate it.--[[User:Ioannes Pragensis|Ioannes Pragensis]] 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and redirect per Karada. Rule of thirds is highly notable, but some nn photographer's attempted refinement of it, without any secondary sources, published only on a web site, isn't. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletions]]. </small> <small>—[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)</small>
 
*'''In reply''' I am the author of the article. Stephen was kind in putting the discussion back up as I had unfortunately not been notified of the deletion proposal (as suggested in [[WP:PROD]]). Thank you for that opportunity. I challenged the deletion in [[User_talk:Stephen]] as I myself considered it compliant with the [[WP:OR]] requirements. Just for clarity, it is not a refinement of the Rule of thirds; it is rather an alternative for post-hoc use. The rule of thirds lacks a foundation, but its popularity and therefore its place on Wikipedia comes forth from its success in preventing beginners from making basic compositional mistakes. Well, thank you all for posting your opinion on this; I can now agree with the deletion of this page. As I pointed out in Stephen's user talk, there have been some mentions at Dutch educational centers of it which in due time may lead to the findings necessary to make this method plausible. The redirect to Cantor's method should indeed be restored. [[User:Eddyspeeder|Eddyspeeder]] 21:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>