- Diagonal method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Restored prod per author's request. Prod was suggested as "No such method is verifiable from a reliable source; just Edwin Westhoff's self-published new research". The article's author obviously has a conflict of interest, but this in itself is not a reason to delete. There are still no verifiable, secondary sources however. Steve (Stephen) talk 03:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – The only ref is the method creator's original publication in which the method is introduced. There are no verifiable secondary sources, no evidence of notability. The method is brand new, the subject of a single article, in Dutch; not a notable topic. Since there is a verifiable source, it would be OK to mention the method in some other article on photographic composition, but a separate article is not appropriate. Dicklyon 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Could be groundbreaking, but this is not where ground should be broken. - Richfife 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete until some discussion is generated in third-party sources that justifies the claims made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, and usefully redirect term to Cantor's diagonal argument. -- Karada 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect per Karada. JJL 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Cantor's diagonal argument, for the time being. If the photographic method becomes notable in the future, we can recreate it.--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. —David Eppstein 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)