Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
August 9
[edit]
- 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) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vampire-queen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This image depicts something inessential to readers' understanding of the topic (to demonstrate the precise nature of the villains' appearance is not necessary) and thus fails NFCC 8. The previous discussion, a couple of months ago, closed as 'no consensus' and I think it is time to rehash the point...! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 16:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misstated the NFFC 8 standard. "Essential to readers' understanding of the topic" is not the requirement. Instead, the image must "significantly increase" readers' understanding, such that its omission would be "detrimental." That's certainly not the same thing as "essential." The image depicts the main villain of the TV episode, and it's not at all reasonable to claim that a text description is an adequate replacement. Whether there is a better image to represent that article is another question, so give your thoughts on that issue. Until that's settled, keep. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This one has enough significance to justify inclusion. The Vampires were pretty important in the story, and it would surely be detrimental not to include an image of one in their true form, which makes me think that it meets NFCC 8. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For reference the original discussion is at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_25#File:Vampire-queen.jpg, my arguments there stand. TreasuryTag - nominating an image for deletion over and over again until you get the result you want really is a violation of WP:POINT Oh - and thanks for notifying me you renominated this image...oh that's right, you didn't. Exxolon (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Yep, your sarcasm is not only really helpful but riotously amusing, so well done for that. Give yourself several large pats on the back; trebles all round. Meanwhile, if your only reason for keeping the image is that the "consensus" (as in, no-consensus) last time was to keep it then you are using a fallacious argument. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep picture of episode villain in true form, adds significantly to readers' understanding of episode. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the image adds to the article and would be missed if it were removed, thus it is beneficial to the project and thus passes the non-free criteria. --Taelus (Talk) 08:04, 16 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Eknodine.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Exxolon (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This is a very, very minor plot-point, and having an image of it fails both NFCC 8 and WP:WHO/MOS#Images (the FUR addresses neither of these points, as it should). It is also relatively easy to describe with text should that be judged necessary. The previous discussion, a couple of months ago, closed as 'no consensus' and I think it is time to rehash the point...! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you about the image's usefulness, so ultimately I have no problem with its deletion. But you've taken the wrong path in trying to get rid of it: first replace it with a better one and then this could just be deleted as an orphan. People are also generally less prone to defend retaining an image when it's not the only one in use in an article. I made a comment about this, and what image from the episode I think would be better, on the article's talk page shortly after the prior FFD ended. I'll see if I can track down another screenshot, but it's just a shame that time was wasted on FFD procedures when simple article editing should have been the first step. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and replace with a more useful screen shot if someone can find one. A very minor point which could just as easily be described in words. Its removal would not be detrimental in any way. However, I agree with Postdlf that adding a more relevant image would be a positive step. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For reference the original discussion is at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_28#File:Eknodine.png, my arguments there stand. TreasuryTag - nominating an image for deletion over and over again until you get the result you want really is a violation of WP:POINT. Oh - and thanks for notifying me you renominated this image...oh that's right, you didn't. Exxolon (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, your sarcasm is not only really helpful but riotously amusing, so well done for that. Give yourself several large pats on the back; trebles all round. Meanwhile, if your only reason for keeping the image is that the "consensus" (as in, no-consensus) last time was to keep it then you are using a fallacious argument. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No my reasons for keeping are the same as I detailed extensively last time, I'm not going to rehash them to death here, suffice it to say your interpretation and my interpretation of our NFCC criteria differ noticeably. Exxolon (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, your sarcasm is not only really helpful but riotously amusing, so well done for that. Give yourself several large pats on the back; trebles all round. Meanwhile, if your only reason for keeping the image is that the "consensus" (as in, no-consensus) last time was to keep it then you are using a fallacious argument. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 17:29, 16 August 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.
- 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 as G2 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Eatacion santa maria metro guayaquil.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Eatacion santa maria metro guayaquil.jpeg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).
- In Sao Paulo, not Guayaquil, and not Aariix3's own work either: copy of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estação metro sto amaro2.JPG and Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 9 August 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.
- 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 as G2 by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tranvia guayaquil.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Tranvia guayaquil.jpeg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs | uploads).
- That is not the skyline of Guayaquil, photo is not Aarix3's work as claimed, as it is a copy of File:METRO Light Rail3.jpg, which identifies location as Houston, Texas. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:5-Carboxyfluorescein.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Kupirijo (notify | contribs | uploads).
- The double bond at the upper right is depicted incorrectly/misaligned. It has been marked for a long time with {{disputed chem}} without objection and it is currently unused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per Edgar. --Leyo 22:43, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Inositol biosynth.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Roadnottaken (notify | contribs | uploads).
- The image incorrectly depicts L-glucose, not D-glucose. It has been marked with {{disputed chem}} for a long time without objection. It is currently unused in any article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Modafinil rxn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Yid (notify | contribs | uploads).
- The image incorrectly shows urea, rather than thiourea, in the first step. The image has been marked with {{disputed chem}} for a long time without objection. The image is unused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:44, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pyruvate decarb.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Cwernert (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This image has several inaccuracies. From the image's talk page: "There are many things wrong with this image. The first arrow attacks the wrong carbonyl (the COOH rather than the ketone), and side arrows show H+ entering or exiting the reactions inappropriately. It is therefore uninformative and misleading and should be deleted." The image has been marked with {{disputed chem}} for a long time without objection. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:47, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tiabendazole.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Yid (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This image has several inaccuracies: the thiazole portion has the wrong substitution point in several of the structures. The file has been marked with {{disputed chem}} for a long time without objection and the is currently unused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 9 August 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.
- 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Troglitazone Rx.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Yid (notify | contribs | uploads).
- There are multiple inaccuracies in this image: there are missing methyl groups throughout. The image is unused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 9 August 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.