Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject distance

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 article. I have no problem with a redirect being set up to somewhere, perhaps Depth of field? I'm not a subject expert, I'll leave that to the discretion of someone else if they feel it is a plausible search term. Consensus here is that it's not a stand alone article though. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete - Essentially a dictionary item, and not even a well-defined one at that. The "subject distance" or "object distance" or "focus distance" are various terms sometimes used in optics and photography, but don't really rate an article, as they are just a measurement in some setup. The Exif field SubjectDistance can be covered in the Exif article; it's seldom used anyway. Nothing here is notable, nor even sourced. Take it to wictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this does not need its own article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hear you, Dicklyon, but I think this topic deserved to be covered somewhere, perhaps in photographic lens. I've told you before, but for the longest time I was baffled by the term "focal length" because at its face, it sounds like it should mean what subject distance means. I'll move this definition into photographic lens unless you can think of a better place for it. Cheers. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to define "subject distance" in any article where the concept comes up; and to define "focal length" when needed, to prevent such confusion. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons Dick has given. --Srleffler (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge somewhere or transfer to Wiktionary as I suggested when I removed the deletion proposal. Fg2 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (possibly into photographic lens) and transfer to Wiktionary. It's a dictionary definition and I don't see how you can make this encyclopedic. Merenta (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: somebody should start a list of photographic terms or a photography glossary. If one already exists, then merge and redirect. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made sure it's defined in the one place where it is used (in depth of field); it's not such a standard term that it should appear in a glossary. In fact, a quick search shows that it is not consistently used as defined in these articles (see this book in particular). Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2008 (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.