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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 23:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic, incompatible, non-topic; impossible to work on. Dicklyon 04:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic, for sure. I'm not sure why this has a basis outside of the Circle of confusion article, and I would not know where to start if this material were to be integrated into that article. JeffConrad 05:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no evidence that this is anything but WP:OR, especially since the diagram was apparently made by the author of the article. --Hyperbole 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree this is original research -- these are well-established formulas from optics, assuming they are correct. And what's wrong with an author making a diagram to illustrate his article? That's a good thing not a bad thing. I also disagree the article is impossible to work on -- it looks to me like standard wiki math markup, easy enough for anyone famliar with Wikipedia math or physics pages to work on. The article is a bit arcane, but I can easily imagine situations where someone might turn to Wikipedia to find the math equations behind blurriness as they contemplate a photo setup of some kind. Agreeing with JeffConrad I don't think the article should be merged into the Circle of confusion because it would take up too much space proportionally if combined into that article. I think the article is basically OK as is. -- technopilgrim 22:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless someone can find a reference that does the derivation this awkwardly, or wants to fix it to agree with some reference; as it stands, it certainly appears to be "original". Dicklyon 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Here's a similar ${\displaystyle B\approx {\frac {f^{2)){N))}$ form on David Jacobson's lens tutorial on photo.net. Is it the derivation you don't like or the final formula? -- technopilgrim 01:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jacobson has several formulae with that factor. That's not the problem. The form and notation and presentation of the derivation here is tortured. It's even hard to follow and check to see if it's correct. It uses ${\displaystyle s+\Delta s}$ for the distance at which the camera is focused, which is an approach I don't recall seeing before, and B for the circle of confusion diameter, even though it claims to use modern notation. It omits steps when it claims not to. The article is just a pile of equations without clear explanation or relationships between them. The drawing is strange, unlike any I've seen in an optics text. It could all be fixed with enough effort, but why? Is there any value in having such an article? If the presentation is clear, and the result is in a usable form, and it's clear when the approximations are good, it might be. It would of course be best to have an answer without the approximations first, but if you read Jacobson you'll see that's unlikely, since one the paramter needed to make it exact, the pupil magnification, is not even included. And unless there's a reference showing such a method, it is be definition original research. I've tried to start on a rewrite; got a drawing made; but there's nothing I can do but throw out what's there and start over, and I just don't see the point of that much work to fix something that has no real purpose. Dicklyon 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the information on any Wikimedia project. It could be Wikipedia or Wikibooks or another project. It's too much for the circle of confusion article but well worth keeping on Wikimedia. Fg2 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dicklyon. Michael K. Edwards 09:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of the apparent idiosyncracy. If it were rewritten to make the context clearer and use standard terms, it could stay, but I still think it would be best for someone to who knows the subject to include at least the result in the main article. JPD (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into circle of confusion. I'm not enough of an expert to understand the technical details, but surely there is some sort of computation that goes into the subject; surely this could be elaborated in a section of the circle of confusion article at the least? Girolamo Savonarola 20:43, 20 October 2006 (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.