Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wells Point


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wells Point

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a neologism, with no reliable sources and no assertion of notability — Snigbrook 10:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the only reference seems to be the author's personal website. JuJube (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid concept taught by professional photographer at institutions including ICP (the internation center for photography) in NYC, Maine Media Workshops, University of Pennsylvania, Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara and the Rocky Mountain School of Photography:

http://workshops.brooks.edu/calendar/48

https://www.rmsp.com/workshops/workshopcontent.aspx?wid=117&prog=7

http://www.theworkshops.com/catalog/courses/coursepage.asp?CourseID=3186&SchoolID=20

If ansel adams was just now teaching the "zone system" would and there was a wikipedia entry for it, would you delete as a neologism?

Michaelcolby —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcolby (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  — Michaelcolby (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * What has Wells to do with the facts and tricks established decades ago? What makes his revelations differ from those they taught back in the seventies? I do remember that 45 degree threshold (actually, quarter of a light day since sun rarely rises above 45° here) since school days. Looks like a coatrack to me. NVO (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea is to use the The Wells Point as a teaching tool and/or a simple memory trigger, especially for students, to figure out when the light is better or worse. It is taking an existing concept and making it easier to use, which happens all the time in many different subject areas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboechat (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  — Tomboechat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The article has no purpose other than to advertise David Wells. The term has no currency whatsoever outside of his classes and as far as I can see there are never going to be reliable sources to use in the article.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Either (a) delete or perhaps (b) radically rewrite and move to an article on Wells, whose own claims to notability I have not investigated but who does on the face of it seem to be a teacher of some note. We're asked above: If ansel adams was just now teaching the "zone system" would and there was a wikipedia entry for it, would you delete as a neologism? If it were a neologism that wasn't yet noted by anyone other than Adams, I'd happily have it deleted, yes. That would neither condemn it to oblivion (after all, the Zone System flourished even without the help of Wikipedia) nor prevent its appearance in some other site's list of photographic terms. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independant sources.  no evidnce of notability.  Appears to be self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.