Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 1

April 1

File:Brass Rat 2007 Finger.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image, used on MIT class ring--an article that has 30+ free images. GrapedApe (talk) 04:23, 1 April 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:Mit ring bezel 2007.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image, used on MIT class ring--an article that has 30+ free images. GrapedApe (talk) 04:24, 1 April 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:Movember.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use B (talk) 05:04, 1 April 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:Stag Range.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use, we're not free webhosting for your gun club B (talk) 05:05, 1 April 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:USA 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, a user's logo that says "USA" "UNITED WE STAND". I agree, but if nobody is using it, we don't need it. B (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons ^walk victor falk^talk 18:24, 2 April 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:USA Logo Small.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Another united we stand logo. B (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons ^walk victor falk^talk 18:24, 2 April 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:Malachite green.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality and orphaned; alternatives available: File:Malachite green structure.svg, File:Malachite green Structural Formulae V.1.svg. Leyo 07:19, 1 April 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:2,2'-Bis(2-indenyl) biphenyl.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 ⚡ 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, replaced in 2,2'-Bis(2-indenyl) biphenyl. Leyo 09:12, 1 April 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:Ahmadinejad at Natanz.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 ⚡ 04:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a politician visiting a nuclear plant. Has been claimed for fair use in a number of different articles, of which only one claim, for Nuclear facilities in Iran, is remotely plausible. However, even here, we don't need this image: we have a much more informative description of the Natanz facility in words, and what its internal machinery looks like may be somewhat interesting, but we can easily imagine it from free illustrations of very similar facilities, such as the one we have at gas centrifuge. Additional use in that latter article is out for the same reason (free image of equivalent similar plant already present); also of course in the Ahmadinejad article (lots of free photographs of the person, don't need another one where he walks through this particular plant). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that there are many other free photographs to illustrate Ahmadinejad, and that the use of this photo in the article about him is tenuous at best (I've already removed it once before). However the same is not true for the centrifuges - there are simply no other photos available of the interior of this facility, so I support the use of a publicity photograph that has been widely distributed to press agencies for the purpose of illustrating the cetrifuges only. I might also point out this photo adds considerably to the Stuxnet article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See futher discussion on the article's talk page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you can illustrate Natanz with non-Natanz centrifuges reflects a deep misunderstanding about the specificities of the Natanz centrifuges. (Our other centrifuge pictures are of American centrifuges, which are of a very different design). I've clarified this with the captions in the centrifuge article — the US centrifuges are 40 feet tall; the Iranian ones are pint sized. This is meaningful information if you care about centrifuges. If you can come up with a free image of the Natanz centrifuges and facility, by all means, upload it instead. But there is no such image. A lot of information is conveyed by an image of the centrifuge hall; I think this low res, publicity image easily satisfies any "fair use" requirements. I suspect, as I did before, that the eagerness of various users to try and delete this image comes more from political motivations than it does from copyright claims. --Fastfission (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "this is meaningful information if you care about centrifuges". That may well be the case. But our readers don't have the expert knowledge to understand what that meaningful information is, and the articles do nothing to tell them. My suggestion: if you are knowledgeable about these things, and can find sourcing for it, write a section in the article that explains what those technical differences are, and what clues about the technology is conveyed by those visual details. If you can do that, I'll happily change my vote to keep. But in the absence of such discussion, it's just moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of our readers have that knowledge, and it is an important purpose of wikipedia to make it available to them, even if they are not so many. To those that don't have, such images may be a way to acquire it. Frankly, your argument that readers don't need pictures they don't understand is a bit of looking down on the hoi polloi. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Raising hand) I have the required knowledge but don't currently have time to work on it. To be blunt - so much about Iran's uranium enrichment program is the subject of assertions and implications that actual verifiable facts, such as those technical details the Iranians and IAEA have released, the publicity photos including this one, are extremely important. Additionally, discussion of the P1 centrifuges used there, their design including size, cooling, cascade design details (gas flow between centrifuge units, etc) are all entirely possible to elaborate in much detail (I have on quick scan several hundred thousand words worth of source material that's unclassified). The use for the facilities article is clearly ok under policy. Fastfission, I, or any number of other experts around here can expand in the future to make it even more ok under policy, by specifically describing all the elements and putting those in context of the centrifuge and cascade design and performance. We don't have to do that work immediately to justify keeping the image; it is clearly and uniquely valuable now and not feasibly replaceable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:55, 2 April 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.