Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirographe

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 keep. Sandstein 19:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirographe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have been particularly notable, even during its time period. No mention in History of photography, despite that article being the best place to contain such information. Many issue tags, including one disputing accuracy whilst no searches seem to suggest this is worthy of its own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: This relates to cinematography rather than photography. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It appears to be cinematography not photography, there are hits on google but i'm undecided about whether it is notable, i think it was probably a standard that didn't get widely accepted. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes you seem to be right about it being cinematography.. i'll amend my opening paragraph. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are some references to be found at google books like this one https://books.google.com/books?id=hFxwX-dM008C&lpg=PA167&dq=Mirographe&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q=Mirographe&f=false.  I think it is notable enough for inclusion. NerudaPoet (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book proves it existed around its time, which isn't disputed, but which part of it establishes any degree of notability or importance? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seven references added. It is described in numerous publications around 1900-1902. Most sources were in French, which I read.104.163.158.37 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, refs added since the start of the afd are good. Szzuk (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2018 (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.