Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effective pixels


 * 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   merged and redirected to Image_resolution. Thanks to Dicklyon and ErikHaugen for boldly doing the work. JohnCD (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Effective pixels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is 3 years old and still is just a definition. This should be deleted because wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'll copy the definition to some place where it fits, and redirect to it, nobody will mind. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to image resolution. It's a measure of the resolution of a digital camera, and most of the articles that it's linked from are about cameras.  There are sources that could be drawn from to make an article that can usefully describe, in plain English, the measurements beyond the obvious of the more pixels, the more clear the picture.  The article about film gauge, which discusses the difference in quality between 110 and 135 (35mm) film, isn't terribly good either.  Mandsford 19:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the right place to move it. The same standards that define "effective pixels" state that a pixel count is NOT a measure of resolution.  Probably merge it with pixel.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep or merge and redirect (But do not delete). This is a widely used term. We do not delete stubs just because they are old. Please see wp:DICDEF. I hesitate to disagree with Dicklyon where pixels are concerned, but image resolution certainly appears to be about the same thing as effective pixels. Perhaps image resolution is in need of work if "resolution" has the wrong shade of meaning? I looked at the sources on the page, I don't see any reasoning why "resolution" is inappropriate. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that it's old. The point I'm making is wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's been three years and it still is still a dictionary page and nothing more. It will never be expanded. That is the only reason why we keep pages that are just dictionary definitions. This will never be expanded because it's just a definition and nothing more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubs can look like dictionary entries. Legit encyclopedia titles can be the same word or phrase as legit dictionary entries. This is a stub about a notable topic. We don't delete articles because they are bad, either. I don't understand the prognosticating here - how do you know it will never be expanded? Why make such a claim? Why does it matter? ErikHaugen (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does matter. A page that is just a dictionary definition does not belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is very clear on that. It's been 3 whole years and no one as touched that page. It won't change. What else are you going to put on the page. The two sentences some up what Effective pixels are. There's nothing more to say. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could redirect to Image_resolution, where the bits I mentioned are quoted and referenced. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IOW, if the point is that resolution is not effective pixels, but is instead effective pixels per unit area, then it is still probably ok to redirect to image resolution and then add clarifying text to image resolution. It seems like a more satisfying redirect than to pixel. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a rough question: Not so much is the term common place but rather is it possible to turn this article into something more than a single paragraph?  Assuming somebody with knowledge of this topic really got into it, is it possible to get some additional sources of information, give some really good examples, and turn this into an article of more than a couple of paragraphs in length?  I'm not asking if it is, but rather if it could be done that way?  The original reason for listing this for deletion, that it hasn't been expanded yet, is not for me sufficient reason to delete.  If it is stuck at a single paragraph article because it can't really be expanded much, then I say delete, otherwise keep.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure it could - it could talk about technical reasons for the "light-shielded" pixels, history, people involved in their development, how the subject affects marketing, any controversies, how will new technologies affect "light-shielded" pixels, etc. Why would you say "delete" even if it couldn't? ErikHaugen (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure if it really can be expanded. You've mentioned another technology and term, "light-shielded pixels", which seems like yet another article.  How about this:  Let's find at least a few more "sources" for this topic and see where it can go.  Add this to the talk page (to keep it simple) and simply start listing potential information sources for this topic.  If you can do that, notability can be achieved and you would be doing a service to this wiki for at least providing some information to flesh out this article.  Even if you don't use the information in those articles at the moment, the fact that the references exist at all can be used to expand this article into something of substance at some future date.  At the moment, there really are only two real sources of information, and both are references to glossary entries about the topic instead of comprehensive articles or book chapters about the topic.  Find the sources, and I'll formally "change my vote" to keep.  I think that would also satisfy the counter arguments offered here so far as well.  --Robert Horning (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --moreno oso (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Valueless rubbish. Covered elsewhere in Image_resolution and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - Does anyone object to the redirect to Image_resolution? I'll take care of the WP:ASTONISH issues and do it if nobody objects? ErikHaugen (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to image resolution. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to image resolution as above. Please.  ;)  --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged the meager content into Image_resolution; time to redirect there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and redirected, since Dicklyon took care of the merge, etc(thanks!). ErikHaugen (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (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.