Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method

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 Delete, at author's request --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Delete Could be groundbreaking, but this is not where ground should be broken. - Richfife 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Delete as original research, and usefully redirect term to Cantor's diagonal argument. -- Karada 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per Karada. JJL 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Eddyspeeder 21:53, 23 May 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.