Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 15

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15

File:Mattn.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned user's image; no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Cultral Algorithim diagram.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

superseded by File:Cultural Algorithm.svg - no need for both Skier Dude (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Slbs Head Students06 07.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan 75.11.50.12 (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Models1.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unencyclopedic. More specifically, the uploader is using the images/files in a manner contrary to WP:NFT & WP:NOTFORUM by repeatably crossing posting back to them on other talk pages and essentially soapboxing about his novel (and fringe) theory. FyzixFighter (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The last 2 files are an effort to reformat the previous femto supplied data into a format that indicates the halflifetime trend of the isotopes of 82Pb lead over the range of the increasing atomic weights of the recorded isotopes, and thus provides a cognitive image of the stability versus isotope atomic weight relationship, and in doing so tends to call attention to irregularities in the graphic representation and suggest their further evaluation. The first file calls attention to the fact that real physical models of the members of the periodic table fit better into the format of the Janet Periodic table than to the Standard Periodic table due to the necessary logic of the nucleon accumulation process.WFPM (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've read the uploader's rationale here, and I've looked at the three images. Maybe there is an argument to be made for these ideas, and maybe there isn't, but Wikipedia isn't the place to make that argument, because Wikipedia doesn't do WP:OR. The images would not be helpful to our readers in understanding anything within the scope of the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The files are evidently an attempt to inform the reader as to the stability properties of the isotopes of lead over the range of noted isotope stability variations. And the charts are not an OR effort, but rather a data evaluation effort, as carried out in normal data analysis procedures to check the consistency of data presentations. And it is better in showing the significant information of the data than in merely listing all the individual constituents. And in some cases it shows inconsistencies in the reported data that calls for special attention. Like for the reported halflife value of OO47Ag 114, which is too low. And I think that this information would be important to editors of this material.WFPM (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Data evaluation etc. is OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I finally went and did a more exhaustive count of the cross-posting - the uploader has spammed links to the now orphaned talk page with the model image (1st file) about 30 separate times in 3 years, apparently with the intent to get more attention for his fringe theory. Deleting the files themselves would hopefully discourage this kind of self-promotion behavior. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Quemont.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not useful. Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, would come in just dandy once we have a Quemont article. As a map, it is generally useful until a better version is made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:02, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ns2003.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, non-useful file Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I've nominated this for speedy deletion. File:NsElectoralMap.PNG is an adaptation of this map, and so I have adjusted that file's description to reference Earl Andrew as the original creator. This en.wiki version can safely be removed as a duplicate of a file at commons - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't speedy it because the colors are slightly different (thus making it not bit-for-bit identical), but I agree that it's pointless to keep this around with a near-identical file already on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case delete as redundant except for minor colour variations, and orphaned. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:16, 23 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this non-free image is controversial enough on here that it needs to be given a full discussion again. Contended to fail WP:NFCC#8. Original deletion nomination rationale was, "Unnecessary non-free photo. We do not need to see a photo of the train to understand that it made a record-setting run." It should also be noted that a number of free images do exist of this locomotive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It shows not only the train but the passengers, including Zeph the burro, who were aboard the train during the record-setting run. For that reason, this image is not recreateable. I have yet to find any other photo that shows Zeph, let alone the other passengers. 69.129.196.234 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to login first. That was me. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep (Should be withdrawn as a "Bad Faith Nomination") See earlier discussion here from September 2010 in which both the appropriateness and "fair use" of this image was discussed at length and was found to be justified thus overturning the arbitrary deletion against consensus of the image made by the current proposer for deletion who also unsuccessfully attempted to delete this image again here. (See also a related discussion here regarding fair use.) When a long standing note on this file's host page referring to the September 2010 discussion was restored after being deleted by the proposer he included in the edit summary a threat when deleting the note for a second time that if it were restored again "I'll nominate it for deletion again and you can find out. I don't think you want to go there." which he has done here (and also without notifying me as is required by WP policy). The only editor that seems to view this image as being controversial is the proposer. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. It is that sort of assertion that is why this is going through another discussion, so we can get a clean determination on what the standing of this image should be. Keep your comments about me to yourself. It is disruptive. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "clean determination" for this image was established at great length and with broad, virtually unanimous consensus more than a year ago. It is unclear to me what "that sort of assertion" is supposed to mean, but this seems to me to constitute a basically invented controversy. Also my comments above are not about "you" but are about your "actions" in this matter. There is a difference. Centpacrr (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two separate processes. Deletion review determines whether or not process was followed, but is not FFD part II, which you are treating it as. Now you actually need to defend this image on its own merits based on the policies in place if you think it should be retained, and stop whining about me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to answer the central point of this: Why is it necessary to show an image at all to understand that records were broken? Seeing what some of the passengers looked like is pretty immaterial. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep That is exactly the question that was addressed and answered in great detail in the review of your challenged deletion of the image just over a year ago and the overwhelming consensus reached was to restore the image as both relevant and appropriate for inclusion in all three articles in which is was found. Nothing has changed since then except that you are again raising an issue that was settled in the week long discussion of September 2010 in which you, for whatever reason, elected to not participate in at that time. And again, my comments are not about "you" but about your "actions" in this matter so please stop accusing me of "whining" or being "disruptive" simply because you disagree with the views of myself and the other editors who support them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No image is ever absolutely necessary for understanding anything; that's a standard that cannot be met. As Slambo says, this picture is an integral and irreplaceable piece of documentation of the event. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination here is based on NFCC#8, and there is a strong enough expression of opinion from editors that the image has informative value that the nominator has not made a persuasive case. This discussion occurs in the context of other FFD nominations of files from the Denver Library, where there is sufficient doubt raised about arguments based on other NFCC criteria that it seems unlikely that this file would fail other criteria either. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I see cited commentary re: Zeph, who was first believed to be a bird. From my reader's POV, it seems rather incredible that a railroad would have made a historic first run like this with a burro aboard; seeing the image of those who arrived in Chicago along with Zeph makes it complete, along with Budd's comment, "Why not? One more jackass on this trip won't make a difference." We hope (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of "A picture is worth a thousand words." Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No additional comments have been added to this bad faith nomination (see above) discussion since October 16. As in the very extensive September 2010 deletion review discussion of this same file, community consensus again supports keeping this file (in the instant case all commenting editors favor retention, none favor deletion), it is time to close this discussion as Keep and to stop attacking the legitimacy and use of this file. Centpacrr (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Acura Legend Coupe (2).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion, but was moved to uncover a commons image leading to the closure of that discussion prematurely. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:01, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SAMSUNG Mobile Unpacked 2011 - Google Episode - Screenshot.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image from a trailer, no encyclopedic purpose, not even clear whether this image shows the actual product and even if it did, it's not really useful for the article in question. So Why 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it may not be accurate but currently is the best shot we have of the device. will have to wait till the 19^th until we get a better shot. IcePik (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:28, 19 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:UBCD4Win logo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a purely decorative image and fails to comply with WP:NFCC#8. Has an invalid fair use rationale: The file may not be used to identify UBCD4Win as stated. Fleet Command (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Usersouvik.arko.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Orphan. No need for this picture Souvik.arko (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.