Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

File:DietaryGuidelines2005cover.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 as F4 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use Bulwersator (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not used on any page. Just pulling up as clutter on the Wikipedia server. Rubinkumar^Talk 22:11, 6 January 2012 (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:Eick svsd.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without source Bulwersator (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I created the image. The data is from Hajo Eicken and I credit him in the article that uses the image. Facts and data are not copyrightable so I do not need to source them. Am I missing something? In any case, I have transfered the image to the commons. Peteymills (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "are not copyrightable" true. "so I do not need to source them" - it is better to mention source of data ([WP:VER]]) Bulwersator (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2012 (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:Nucleotides v2.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 ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Nucleotides 1.svg Bulwersator (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The pentose sugar on the new version, particularly between the 2' and 3' carbons is poorly rendered as is the charge on the phosphate atoms. The original is clearer despite its being a png. Graham Colm (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the old PNG is still the more informative image. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, moved to commons Bulwersator (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fixed the issues in File:Nucleotides 1.svg. BTW: There is a nice version that might be translated. --Leyo 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) PS. I also nominated the Commons version for deletion.[reply]
- The ribose (light yellow) would be clearer using a darker colour and the circles around the charges on the oxygen atoms of the phosphate moieties (the very ones that make DNA an acid) are too easily confused with other atoms. Graham Colm (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The color looks fine to me when embedded in Nucleoside. I don't see a risk of people who understand the image to confuse the charges with atoms. --Leyo 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about the people who are just beginning to learn about DNA? Those readers who already understand will not bother to look at it. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMO the SVG version is better for such people. There are several aspects that are not easily recognizable in the PNG version. --Leyo 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. Graham Colm (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2012 (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:The Trouble with Angels - Smoking scene.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 ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture fails the non-free content criteria, as it is only used for illustration and doesn't enhance the understanding of the topic and article doesn't contain critical commentary about it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFCC #8; loss of the image will not adversly affect the reader's understanding of the film. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:34, 6 January 2012 (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:Prasterone.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, tagged as incorrect Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chemical structure depicted is incorrect and this file has been replaced by a corrected (and much higher quality) alternative. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 13 January 2012 (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:"Coming Soon - Rockets Movies & Games" sign (Pittsboro, Indiana - 2000).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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused media file with no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Sreejith K (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2012 (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:Kongkokking-photo-wallpaper-leaf.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: moot point - already moved to Commons under the same name Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, the plant is unidentified and the specifics of the shot do not lend to its use in an encyclopedic manner, even if we could figure out which article to place it in. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:08, 6 January 2012 (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:SSRunes.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. There are a number of higher quality images of this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Badges_of_rank_of_the_Schutzstaffel Sven Manguard Wha? 15:20, 6 January 2012 (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:NC4Med.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 ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the actual medal, it's a very quality MSPaint mockup, and there is no evidence that the medal would look like this at all, in fact, the article describes something different. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One note, while this is a mockup, it is what it actually looks like. There are two sides to the medal. This is one and the image here shows the other. However, I suggest just asking the photographer of the real image to just photograph the other side. $The Haz talk$ 01:32, 7 January 2012 (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:Logo-natural-retreats.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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo, there is no article for Natural Retreats, it was deleted G11 over a year ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 6 January 2012 (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:N2Emissions.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 Leyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Was re-uploaded in .png format as File:N2Emissions.png, apparently by request. No reason for two identical files in separate formats, and .png is a much more usable format, so I've nominated this over the other one for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 6 January 2012 (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:SpreadOutBraggPeak complete.svg

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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A trace of File:Pdd sobp photon.JPG, however this new file does not contain all of the information that was in the old file, so the old file is still in use and this file has little encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:37, 6 January 2012 (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:Seal Of The Vice President Of The Unites States Of America.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned to File:US Vice President Seal.svg, and there is a nearly identical .png version (that served as the source for the SVG) already on Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons official government version, from my reading of the license information provided. The SVG is clearly not that close to this one, with the border being distinctly variant. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2012 (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:India Pakistan1947a.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:India Pakistan1947a.jpg; deletion discussion should occur there (not eligible for fair use) Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2012 (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:Great Seal of Maryland reverse.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 F8 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Great Seal of Maryland reverse.png; not eligible for fair use (see my explanation there of why it could be redrawn as free), so discusison should occur there not here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2012 (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:Ronnie-lees.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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflictingly claimed to be a free image in the source info but has a non-free licensing tag. As non-free it would fail NFCC as an image of a living person, the linked permission at the source is for non-commercial use only so it cannot be considered a free image either. January (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Permission was granted by Lees for the image use, and on his website he actually released these images into the public ___domain. SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2012 (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:Tymoshenko waves to supporters from a prison window.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 ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. This picture of Yulia Tymoshenko waving from a prison cell does not aid the understanding of the article about her. Sandstein 21:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not irreplaceable. I expect that there will be other opportunities to take photos of her in prison during the course of her sentence.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the file "does not increase readers' understanding", hence I do not object against deleting it. But I do not think that "there will be other opportunities to take photos of her in prison". I am sure we are not allowed to take pictures in a Ukrainian prison (we are not allowed to bring a camera when we visit a prisoner in the United Kingdom); I am also not sure anybody can visit her; let alone a random Wikipedia-editor... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel it important to take photos of convicted criminals in prison, you could always offer the prison officials some money for them to facilitate it. --Toddy1 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeeah, I forgot about that... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm not familiar with this particular prison, but there is a prison in Kiev that has windows facing a public street. The windows look similar to the window in this photo. It's possible to stand on a public sidewalk and take a photo of a person inside the prison if the person is standing at the window. I disagree about this photo not adding anything to the understanding of the article. A comparison can be made of her imprisonment to that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and others. It may also be useful in an article about the justice system in the former Soviet Union. This is a very valuable photo of a historic event, namely November 4, 2011, her 51st birthday, which is not going to happen again. USchick (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She will have many other birthdays in prison.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if she survives another year in a Ukrainian prison, and even then, will she come to the window and wave? (Not a crystal ball.) USchick (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect her to not survive? I expect she will live into her 80s.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2012 (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:Radfahrerüberfahrt (Österreich).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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned/replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 2b.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 21:42, 6 January 2012 (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:Pm oxide.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It's just a beige/cream-colored powder (like there are thousands of other chemicals). The colors in the photograph might even not be exactly correct. Leyo 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The image significantly increases reader's understanding on the visual appearance of the compound. There are very few photographs of Pm₂O₃. A text description would probably not be enough. By this logic, we should delete all images of most metals, because they all appear silvery and are very similar to each other in appearance. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are non-free, I agree. We could just pick the one that looks closest. :-) I stay with my point. --Leyo 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "closest-looking" compound is very subjective (it may be similar to one person, but not to another), and misleads the reader into thinking that that is how the real compound looks like. All these non-free images should be kept as they serve a useful purpose in informing the reader. Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture of some white powder in a metal container. It could be flour. It tells people nothing. To be informative, the picture would need additional information about how it was produced.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy. Using a "closest-looking" compound instead of a real (non-free) image of promethium oxide is at best inaccurate and at worst misleads the reader into thinking that the "closest-looking" compound used is really promethium oxide when it is not. [1] (where the image came from) states that the image is from Ralph Lapp's book (listed as the source for the file description for File:Pm oxide.jpg) and [2] states that the image shows promethium oxide, so the image is likely accurate. Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The colors in the photograph are likely to be inaccurate. --Leyo 11:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] states that the actinide pictures on www.chemtopics.com ([4]) are newer scans from a later edition of Ralph Lapp's book. The pictures on www.chemtopics.com all seem to come from the same edition, so the pictures on www.chemtopics.com are probably from a later edition then those on gotexassoccer.com and so should be more reliable and accurate. Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found these two other versions of the photograph. This supports my concerns raised above that the color is dependent on the actual photograph. The color in File:Pm oxide.jpg might be correct by chance, but it might also be incorrect. Hence, the photograph should be replaced by a description of the appearance of the compound (currently missing in the article). --Leyo 11:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC) PS. I just noticed that Double sharp is the new account of the blocked uploader.[reply]

Lanthanum-138, the account that uploaded this file, was an old username of mine. It is only blocked because I only use my current account (Double sharp) now. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image serves no purpose other than to show that the substance is a powder. Also the licensing information for the file is false (e.g. it is not a poster, and it does not provide critical commentary, and so on). There is no plausible or reasonable non-free justification for use of the image. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That template ({{Non-free poster}}) has been removed and changed to a generic {{Non-free fair use in}}. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep. Promethium is a seriously radioactive element. It is not a simple matter of asking one of our chemists (or non chemists) to buy some from Sigma Aldrich. Unless one is already working with radioactive elements (has the system set up for tracking and dosimetry), I would not recommend buying it. Even if we had such a person, they generally don't like to buy radioactive materials unless really using them. Using the wrong material is not a good option (would go pictureless instead). I don't think usage of the photo does great harm to the owner of it. And it is legally free usage. Unless one has a serious fetish towards not ever using fair use photos at all, then this seems like the sort of photo that justifies fair use. Nasty stuff and hard to get a photo. And all we have...TCO (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I largely agree with TCO - there are likely very few photos of this, and obtaining a new (free) one would be very difficult. The photo does help in the understanding of the compound, more so than text would (not only its color, which admitadely might be subject to some variability, but also the consistency of the powder, and such). We are being responsible in our fair use (low resolution, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme judge the issue. Let's examine the nomination rationale: "It's just a beige/cream-colored powder (like there are thousands of other chemicals). The colors in the photograph might even not be exactly correct." It is a powder (the color doesn't matter), clearly illustrating the chemical (as said, consistency and alike). While theoretically it is possible to convert it into text, don't expect the same level of understanding. Colors are a better catch, but many lanthanides salts change the color depending on light around (check holmium(III) oxide, it's the best example I can think of). So I do not consider the nomination appropriate. Things can be illustrated in two ways: a photo and a diagram (scheme, whatever else). The latter are used to show the atomic structure, and no diagram can show what a chemical looks like. Therefore, I consider the usage here "fair." We can't use the chemical that looks closest: this is a violation of WP:V. And it is in use just to show the chemical in the article of the chemical. Not even the promethium article. Also, it does not bug the authors in any way (we're not making money on it or anything. But if even it does bug them, they can call us to remove it, but they don't). Why don't you like it... Strong keep.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any solid can be a powder. You can make powdered marble, powdered steel, even powdered wood. I do not see that the photograph conveys any useful information.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any solid can be a powder. But this image shows how the powder looks like, and does more than just showing that promethium oxide can be made into a powder. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least the image should be cropped in order to reduce the large and distracting orange area. --Leyo 16:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the orange background large and distracting? The metal tray with the promethium oxide powder takes up almost all of the area of the image. The orange background is only a background. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar background on File:Tc,43.jpg (because it came from the same book). Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) You really ask, how a warning color may distract?! --Leyo 09:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the important information is the powder in the metal tray. But I wouldn't mind changing this picture and File:Polonium.jpg to have transparent backgrounds. For File:Radon.jpg, it might be better to leave it as a black background. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it may be distracting to some people, and those two files I mentioned have been edited to change the background to gray. Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I asked for it. --Leyo 07:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This picture clearly depicts the subject of the article. I don't believe there is any valid reason to delete it, as it complies with non-free use. Nicholasb07 (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can appreciate the rarity/security of the material, and definitely agree that NFCC#1 is met in considering imagery (no free replacement as an image can be made) but I do, as others, question the need to visually see the solid to understand the article. Chemical materials in other resources like the CRC, chemical catalogs, and the like are typically not visualized via photographs, because terms like "fine yellow powder" is sufficient for them. While other chemical substances in less restricted uses can be photographed freely and used in articles, we don't have any NFC guidance that allows for a non-free image to be used in such places unlike the other generally accepted uses listed at WP:NFCI. If it was a material with properties more akin to, say, mercury that was very atypical, that might be something, but there's easily thousands of "powder" materials out there. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have plenty of other radioactive substances with free images here on this project. Why should promethium oxide be any different? I'm not seeing that case being made here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (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:Radfahrerüberfahrt.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned/replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 2b.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 21:56, 6 January 2012 (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:Pannenhilfe (Österreich).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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 4.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 22:00, 6 January 2012 (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:Tankstelle (Österreich).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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 6.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 22:02, 6 January 2012 (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:Telefon (Österreich).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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 5.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 22:02, 6 January 2012 (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:Wohnstraße.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Hinweiszeichen 9c.svg that is of better quality, based on official sign and properly sourced/attributed. Leyo 22:04, 6 January 2012 (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:Adobop.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 ⚡ 22:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one user's page. Not worth taking up space on the server for only one user. This is a user's personal photo. Rubinkumar^Talk 22:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK to upload personal images to use on userpage. Deleted image will still use space on servers (somehow it is possible to undelete deleted files). And hard drive space is almost free nowadays (bandwidth is a different thing) Bulwersator (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (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:Appoggiatura.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 ⚡ 02:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has been superseded by a lower file size vector version $The Haz talk$ 22:28, 6 January 2012 (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:Tamil Nadu Police shooting team.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to be a photograph of a picture, and therefore it is possible that this is not the own work of the uploader, which would make this an orphaned non-free file. Irregardless, I do not see encyclopedic use in this image; there is no article on the team. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:44, 6 January 2012 (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:Tamil Nadu Police riding team 3.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, appears to be a photograph of a picture, and therefore it is possible that this is not the own work of the uploader, which would make this an orphaned non-free file. Irregardless, I do not see encyclopedic use in this image; there is no article on the team. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 6 January 2012 (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:Target (1).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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no description, appears to be a screenshot of a video, with no indication that the video is the work of the uploader (telltale black bars at the top and bottom, plus the uploader's other uploads). No encyclopedic value apparent. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 6 January 2012 (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:Insp 4.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no description or identification of the subject, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:48, 6 January 2012 (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:IGP TAMILSELVAN IPS.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, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent encyclopedic value (it's in a gallery, identified as "IGP TAMILSELVAN IPS"). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:48, 6 January 2012 (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.