Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29

File:Hfevents.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: Moved to Commons, qualified PD-Text. Reh man 10:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary states "unofficial logo" - is there a reason not to replace with the official logo? Although just text, should be replaced with official logo. Also, as "unofficial", should it be licensed as "logo"? No source Skier Dude (talk 01:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may be incorrect, but the image may be PD-text. If so, the image is still be being used in an article. In that case, I would think the image should be kept if a source is added.--Rockfang (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, iff Rockfang is right. Rehman 13:49, 3 December 2010 (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:Daigle-yashin-1993-94.jpeg

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. Reading over the arguments and the articles where the content is used, I am not convinced that the file meets WP:NFCC#1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 - image not actually discussed in either article it's used in Mosmof (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contest - to quote "The club would promote Daigle over Yashin, as seen in the yearbook photo". You did not read the 'History of' article closely enough. It's one example of promotion materials used to promote Daigle, which was a very important story in the history of the team. Also as a 'famous draft bust' while Yashin turned out to be a star player. It's also important because the Senators marketed the two of them as future stars. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, but it still doesn't really work. It's not readily apparent by looking at the cover image that the "Senators woud promote over Yashin", and to make that claim is clearly original research. Surely the same point would be better made with a sourced text with a reliable, third party source. It's just a standard team promotional material with the team's stars on the covers. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that is was discussed. The wording may be debatable, but it is discussed, which is the objection. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I do concede that the subject is discussed. Even if it is discussed, it still fails WP:NFCC#1 because the same point can be made (in a clearer way, to boot) using text and without the yearbook cover. Mosmof (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The cover is not there to make a point. It is an example of the promotion of the two players. Both were famous members and were important parts of the history of that time. Maybe the nurse photo of Daigle would be better but that shouldn't disqualify this one. It's better as it has both players. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's not there to make a point, then it's not essential to understanding the subject. There are better (well sourced) ways to show examples of how the team promoted the players than a rather generic team yearbook cover. It's not essential to critical commentary, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. Though the real issue may be the original research in the prose. If we simply replace it with sourced text, we won't need the image. Problem solved? Mosmof (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It makes the article better to have it. It is a rare photo of the two Alexes together. Why are you adamant that it must be removed? It may not be the best example of a non-free image on Wikipedia but it surely is not a bad example. There is no way to replace a picture of the two young stars with any free image. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think a photo of two players can be said to promote one player over the other. I guess it is probably because Daigle is in front, but that isn't the clearest way this could be presented. The caption says "big hopes for" both players. If it was a free image, I would have no problem with its inclusion, but its just extra here, rather than essential in the team history article. The same section in Daigle's article is entirely unsourced, and still - can be explained adequately through text, rather than a single picture. Canada Hky (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2010 (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:Polish neo nazis.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free, commercial news agency photograph of recent news event. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 29 November 2010 (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:M1-4h(66).gif

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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned low quality GIF image not designed from any standards manual. Admrboltz (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A higher quality SVG based on standards manuals can be created very easily. Imzadi 1979 → 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unused. Rehman 12:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, low quailty. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:35, 4 December 2010 (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:Isoprenaline.gif

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 ⚡ 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low res., inappropriate file type; replaced in Isoprenaline. Leyo 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Commons~~ Delete, the files are different. Reh man 12:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The quality (incl. inappropriate file type) is simply not sufficient to be useful. --Leyo 12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Rehman changed his statement above after my reply[reply]

No offence dude, but IMHO the file seems quite ok. And IMO we shouldn't delete irreplaceable files with good licence. Reh man 13:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created and uploaded a SVG file that is respecting the fact of isoprenaline/isoproterenol being a racemic mixture. Now, there is no reason not to delete the file. --Leyo 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just a quick question, is that wavy line supposed to be that way? And would that have any "factual" issues between the two? Reh man 13:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Structural formula#Unspecified stereochemistry. I am not sure if I understand the last question. --Leyo 13:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on Leyo. We donna need dumb files just for the purpose of nothing. This image can be replaced and is replaced by other pics. The license argument is not valid cos every formula is PD anyway. Last but not least, impo a chemist can judge about chemical pictures in a quite sophisticated way, do you agree? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) Reh man 10:49, 5 December 2010 (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.