Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 25

< July 24	July 26 >

July 25

File:Skif Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Organization of Scouts.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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original uploader, superseded by better SVG at Commons (Ukrainian law so ok) which was the original goal, so image has served its purpose and is unused, speedy was declined as different format Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:20, 25 July 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:Austinorielly.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in use. Out of scope. multichill (talk) 11:57, 25 July 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:RocketMailLOGO.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate copy of File:Rocketmail.png. Both are non-free images. The latter is already nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 24#File:Rocketmail.png. I believe the uploader is attempting to evade deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the uploader was acting in good faith, although without proper knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I appreciate uploader's co-operation; however this image, which was in violation NFCC#3a is now orphaned and merits speedy deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 14:38, 26 July 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:Instantsig.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, Unencyclopedic nlapierre 16:22, 25 July 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BEOT!!!.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not used - not usable? MGA73 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 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:20100117 0048SS EscherichiaColi.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 ⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This image is an orphan, it looks nothing like coliform bacteria let alone Escherichia coli. It is out of focus and has severe chromatic aberration and is impossible to verify. Wikipedia is not not a repository Graham Colm (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What do coliform bacteria—including E. coli— look like? They look like a bacillus, or “rod-shaped” bacteria, do they not? And when Gram-stained, they stain pink. Visually, what else is there to see about them? This image clearly shows about half a dozen bacilli, stained pink. How does this not look like E. coli? The only other optical image on the Escherichia coli article does not show as much individual detail as my image does. Even the electron micrographs don't show very much more detail than my image. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a point that I want to make; the ideas are very clear in my head, but I can't seem to translate them coherently into words. It has to do with comparing my image, which has been tagged for deletion, with the one other extant optical image] in the Escherichia coli article. The other image is at a different scale than mine, showing a large number of bacilli, while mine is intended to give a closer view of a much smaller number of bacilli. The other image appears to be of higher quality, but only because it isn't trying to depict as fine a level of detail as mine is. To make a comparison, I took a portion of that other image, scaled it so that it was on approximately the same pixel-per-micron scale as mine, and cropped it to the same size. It's past my bedtime; perhaps after I've slept, I'll be able to come up with some more coherent words to make my point. For now, here is my image, on the left, compared to a comparably-scaled portion of the other image, on the right.
File:20100117_0048SS_EscherichiaColi.jpg File:E_choli_Gram_660px.jpg

— Bob Blaylock (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shows just how poor the image is and that it is also redundant; clearly we have a much better one. To say "mine is intended to give a closer view" reveals a lack of understanding of the limitations of optical microscopes. To observe more structure an electron microscope is needed. It is not possible to reveal much more meaningful detail using an optical microscope than that shown in the bottom image. Using oil an oil immersion objective lens, the best optical microscopes have a resolving power of about 200 nM and E.coli is about 500nM in diameter. It is not possible to give a closer view even with a professional instrument and no further, finer detail can be observed by enlarging the image. This is called redundant or dead magnification. By enlarging the image under discussion, the optical aberrations simply become more strikingly obvious. Wikipedia does not need this image, it would not last five minutes in a Good or Featured Article. Frankly, it is embarrassing and should be deleted. If this image remains it will be found by search engines and it will be attributed to Wikipedia and our reputation will be damaged. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 31 July 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:20100224 010535 BasophilGranulocyte1024.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 as G7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks nothing like a basophil - where is the nucleus? The uploader says "I don't know what it really is" and neither do I. This image is an orphan and Wikipedia is not a repository. Graham Colm (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For once, I agree. I initially identified this as a basophil, and posted it as such, and very soon thereafter realized that I was incorrect in my identification of it. I'd have deleted it myself, a long time ago, if I knew how. I figured that sooner or later, someone would get around to doing so simply because it was “orphaned”. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#G7.--Rockfang (talk) 01:46, 2 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.

File:20100115 021705 Bacteria 1007F.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 ⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks a little like an image of bacteria but it is impossible to verify. My main concern is WP:OR in the description. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No WP:OR issue; see WP:OI. Currently orphaned (and looking back at the history, I see this to be your doing), but I had submitted it originally to include in the Bacteria article as an example of different morphologies; since this image shows some variety. If it survives your recent Jihad, I'll probably submit it to the Bacterial cellular morphologies article. It mostly shows cocci, some individual, some grouped in staphylococci-type clusters, and some in streptococci-type chains. There's also a nice chain of streptobacilli just above the area between the “5” and “6” tick labels.
  
  A common objection from you seems to be on the basis of image quality, and in this case, I have to admit that I would wish for better quality. But it seems that the important thing is that the image shows what I intended it to show, and that what I intend it to show is worth contributing to the article in which I put it. What standards actually exist on the Wikipedia for image quality? The only thing I can find on the subject is a neglected proposal at Wikipedia:Image quality requirements, which appears to be a good, albeit unsuccessful start of an attempt to begin a discussion that might have led to some objective image quality standard. It seems to me that the vast majority of my images to which you've objected on the basis of quality meet the strictest standard proposed at WP:IQR, which is that “An image must clearly be recognized as portraying what it is supposed to at the size provided in the article”. A few of my images, including this one, may not meet that standard, but still meet the second, less-strict proposed standard that “An image must clearly be recognized as portraying what it is supposed to at its maximum resolution to which it can be enlarged on the screen”. I do not think that there are any of my images poor enough that I'd have to go to the third, least-strict proposal of “An image must appear to plausibly be what it is portraying“ — at least not on image quality grounds.
  
  In a few cases, you've removed my images from articles, and tagged them for deletion citing image quality issues, while leaving other images of poorer quality than mine. What's up with that? My images are good enough to clearly show what they are intended to show, and lacking an official, objective image quality standard for them to violate, I don't see what your basis is on going after so many of my images, especially since you seem to be specifically singling me out for such treatment. Is there some sort of feud between us that I have somehow failed to notice until now? — Bob Blaylock (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not illustrate the differences in bacterial morphologies at all well; there are other images available that are much, much better in this regard. But, what bothers me more than the extremely poor quality of this image is it's description. It reads:

I'm not going to mention the name, but there's a major supermarket chain that sends trailers to the factory where I work, to carry my company's products to this supermarket chain's distribution center. These trailers are nearly always dirty, and smell bad. One day, I was loading one of these trailers. I didn't notice that it smelled any worse than they usually do, but several of my coworkers, as they walked past, complained of how bad this trailer smelled. I took a sample of some water that was puddled near one end of the trailer. This image is of some of the bacteria that I found in that sample—the largest variety of different types of bacteria that I have ever found in one sample.

I think this goes against the spirit of the no original research policy. Wikipedia is not a blog and not a repository and the image is not good enough to illustrate the important differences in bacterial morphologies. It should be deleted. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this goes against the spirit of the no original research policy. The text to which you are objecting isn't part of any article, nor was it ever intended to be; it is a description of where the material in the image came from. It's a description of the setting in which I found these bacteria, and what made it interesting enough for me to think it was worth taking that sample, examining it, and sharing what I found. It is part of the documentation that goes with this image. I wouldn't expect that text to be useful or appropriate as part of the text of any article in which this image would appear, but I think it is entirely appropriate and valuable as part of the description and documentation of the image itself. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:19, 31 July 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:20100207 234732 SeanetteSnotFungus.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 MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is WP:OR and not encyclopedic "My wife was complaining about green stuff coming from her nose". Wikipedia is not WP:NOTREPOSITORY. For goodness sake "Snot fungus",??? we are working hard building a professional encyclopedia here. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In this instance, it looks like you're really desperate for an excuse to delete this image. Elsewhere, you've complained about “poor provenance”. This image has excellent provenance, and you're complaining about that — about my having given a detailed account of the source of this image. As with elsewhere, I dispute your WP:OR objection on the basis of WP:OI. I'm not making any claim about the content of this image other than what is obvious from the image itself and my knowledge of the source of the content of this image. I do not claim to know what variety of mold this is, but it is indisputably mold, and I think an excellent illustration of the conidiophores of this particular mold. It is certainly a worthwhile addition to the image gallery on the Mold article; I do not see any other image there that illustrates this particular structure nearly as well as this image does. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the image were cropped and renamed I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to rename an image here, other than simply uploading a new version under a different name. I think the current name is appropriate, as a description of what is in this image and where it came from; it is fungus, grown from snot that came from someone named Seanette. But if changing the name will resolve the dispute, then I am not feeling the least bit stubborn about keeping the name.
Actually, I think I agree with you about cropping. Elsewhere, wherever I share my photomicrographs, I am constrained by limits of how big an image I can post, so I crop and scale it down so that the part that I think is most interesting fits within the limits imposed by the place where I am sharing it. Wikipedia's limits are well outside of the original size of any of the images that I produce, so I've not always seen a need to crop or scale them down. Coming from my background as a data analyst, I tend to be of the mindset that it's a bad thing to lose data when one doesn't have to, and cropping an image, or scaling it down, is losing data. But in terms of using an image as an illustration in an article, I think I have to agree that it is often better to crop it down so that the interesting part is what appears there.

It occurs to me here to think of a feature that might be suggested for addition to the Wiki software, if it isn't already hiding in there somewhere. As it now stands, there's a feature in there to dynamically generate a smaller version of any image, at any arbitrary size. Look at what comes of the following links:
• 100 pixels.
• 200 pixels.
• 400 pixels.
• 800 pixels.
The tags for including an image in an article have parameters that can be used to specify the size that the image will appear in that article.
I think a good feature to complement this would be one that allows a cropped subset of an image to be specified, so that the image could be stored in its whole, uncropped, unscaled form, and a reference could be made to some subset, specified as a rectangle so many pixels by so many pixels located at such and such position within the original image, and scaled to a specified size. This would make it possible for images to be cropped down for display in articles while still allowing the original image to be stored in uncropped form, thus avoiding “losing data”.

This is the other image that got moved to the Wikimedia Commons while I was editing the mildew image. I guess the purpose of this move was to address your repeated objection that “the Wikipedia is not a repository, though I don't know why it was only done with these two images. I'm still rather hazy on the distinction, but apparently, the Wikimedia Commons is a repository, and that the significance of that is that images are welcome there regardless of whether or not they are relevant to any specific article. Is there any good reason that i shouldn't move all my extant images there (assuming I can figure out how to do so) and put any future images there, even if I intend them to be part of an article here?

In any event, I agree with cropping this image, and am not strongly opposed to changing its name. I'll shortly upload a cropped version of this image, and await guidance from you as far as how to go about changing the name. I assume that, since this file has been moved to the Commons, that I should upload the new version there, and that the change will correctly propagate to the Wikipedia. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:25, 31 July 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:20100208 002523 ShowerCurtainMildew.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 MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this image has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. It could be anything. The description says it is mildew but no fungal structures are visible. Wikipedia is not a repository. I also have concerns regarding WP:OR. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No WP:OR issue applies; see WP:OI: “Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments…” This image does not “illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments”.
  You're simply wrong about it not showing any fungal structures. Hyphae are clearly visible in this image. If you look at the full-sized version, you can even see the individual cell boundaries in the hyphae.
  It is exactly what I say it is — mildew growing on a plastic shower curtain. I cut a particularly mildewy piece out of a mildewy shower curtain, put it under my microscope, and this is what I saw. I know what I was looking at. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would second Bob Blaylock's opinion. As seen from the pages that used the picture (mold and mildew), the depiction of the corresponding object is fairly clear. WP:OR does not apply here. Yangqing Jia —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - I suspect sock puppetry, but having said that, I will assume good faith and point out that this commentator has made no other contributions to the project. On the enlarged image it is just about possible for an expert to discern what might possibly be hyphae. But the image quality is too poor to be certain. I don't think this image has any value and it should be deleted. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I have not engaged in sock puppetry here. I have no idea who this Yangqing Jia is, nor why he seems to have contributed nothing other than a terse comment in support of one of my images. This seems a rather odd argument to make, but if I were going to engage in a practice such as sock puppetry, it wouldn't be as obvious as it appears here.
      I think you are simply wrong about the quality of this image. Hyphae can be clearly seen and identified as such, and, as I have pointed out, individual cell boundaries are visible in the hyphae when the image is viewed at full size.
      It seems that during the time I have been editing this comment, someone else has moved this image (along with one other of mine that is currently under discussion) to the Wikimedia Commons. I'm not clear on the significance of this distinction, or what it means to this discussion. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for the value of the image, I think that the Mildew article certainly needs a picture or two of mildew. Actually, it looks like that article could use a lot of work on the text, but that, I'm afraid is, too far out of my own areas of expertise for me to be much help there. I certainly think that a microscopic image of mildew, showing exactly what my image shows, contributes greatly to that article. It could also very much use an image or two showing mildew in the macroscopic sense, as a normal person would see it in everyday life. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image has been deleted from Wikipedia and moved to the Commons. So this discussion seems to be over. Bob, if there were some way that I could give you a state of the art optical microscope, I would love to. Having said that, I could send an oil immersion objective to you if you want one—just email me. I applaud your enthusiasm. Graham Colm (talk) 22:26, 31 July 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.