Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m delsort |
Eddyspeeder (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 17:
*'''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)
| |||