Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.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: keep The article discusses several incarnations of "Loco-motion." The Little Eva, Grand Funk Railroad and Kylie Minogue versions were all significant. The topic is the song, not the original Little Eva version of the song or it would be titled The Loco-Motion (Little Eva version). The expanded discussion of the other versions of the song makes the additional cover art justifiable by the marketing, branding, and identification information that the other covers convey to the discussion of the cover versions of the subject of the article. Nv8200p talk 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary cover art (cover version) of single The Loco-Motion, not subject of discussion of article, fails NFCC#1, #3a, #8. MASEM ( t) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • True, you can use a free image of the band as a substitute for this image. However, I uploaded the image just to help readers identify the product. If you omit this image, you would encourage others to remove such images, like the front cover of The Carpenters' rendition of the 1963 song " They Long to Be Close to You", first sung by Richard Chamberlain. Also, the File:Yvonne-elliman-if-i-cant-have-you-1978.jpg would be removed since the Bee Gees sang If I Can't Have You first. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yup, that should be the case, as we only have allowance for one cover art in an article per NFCI#1 (unless other cover art is the subject of discussion) -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the cover version is mentioned significantly in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Just because the cover version of the song is mentioned doesn't mean the cover needs to be included if there's no discussion about the cover art itself. We only allow cover art for the specific topic in question (under NFCI#1's allowance to meet NFCC#8), and that is about the original song, not the cover version. -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is in a section infobox to represent a notable cover version and passes all of the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#1 is met because there is no free image that could be found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single cover is used for identification of the Grand Funk Railroad version and the Little Eva single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of this version. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of the Grand Funk Railroad version. The single cover passes the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is used for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how this cover version is a notable cover version. There does not need to be critical commentary of the Grand Funk Railroad single cover image, but of the item (cover version) itself. WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in one article, but if the Grand Funk Railroad cover version had its own article, the image would be acceptable there, so it should be acceptable in the its own section of the "The Loco-Motion." The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is not an alternate cover for the Little Eva cover, it is the primary cover for the Grand Funk Railroad version and should be treated as such. Aspects ( talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
As a side note, File:Tlm gfr1.jpg was the in the Grand Funk Railroad section infobox prior to its removal earlier this month and was uploaded to Wikipedia in November 2008. If the image in discussion is kept, this image should be deleted. Aspects ( talk) 05:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
NFCC#1 allows for a free alternative to be no image as well, and the reasoning for NFCC#8 is incorrect since there is zero discussion on the cover art and we already have one identifying image for the song. The reason for #3 is wrong as we already have an identifying image for this article, that of the original song. The reader's understanding is not harmed by removal of the image because there is no contextual significance that is given. This is facet that has long been used in practice for cover art (as listed at the RFCs named in NFCI#1's footnote) - an article on a published work gets one cover art for identification, but all subsequent covers (including remakes) must show discussion on the artwork itself or otherwise is unallowable. -- MASEM ( t) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete provided that the image meets the threshold of originality WP:NFCI §1 permits one image identifying the product "The Loco-Motion". This image appears to identify a different product: "Grand Funk Railroad version". Product images are usually not allowed in articles about other topics. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article." As the subject of the article isn't the "Grand Funk Railroad version", the image doesn't satisfy WP:NFCI §1 (and thus not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3a). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this image is not subject to copyright at all, since it does not meet the threshold of originality. It should be retagged as a free image. – Quadell ( talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Nah, it has a copyrightable logo at the bottom. You probably missed it. George Ho ( talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The contents of the album are copyrighted. But the cover is just text. – Quadell ( talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (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:KylieLocomotionCover.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: keep The article discusses several incarnations of "Loco-motion." The Little Eva, Grand Funk Railroad and Kylie Minogue versions were all significant. The topic is the song, not the original Little Eva version of the song or it would be titled The Loco-Motion (Little Eva version). The expanded discussion of the other versions of the song makes the additional cover art justifiable by the marketing, branding, and identification information that the other covers convey to the discussion of the cover versions of the subject of the article. Nv8200p talk 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

File:KylieLocomotionCover.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheSameStar ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary cover art (cover version) of single The Loco-Motion, not subject of discussion of article, fails NFCC#1, #3a, #8. MASEM ( t) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

If the cover song is really notable, it could have its own article where the cover art then can be used under NFCI#1's allowance. -- MASEM ( t) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The text used in the FUR template, in the "purpose" section, states: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art [this means that it is the song, not its cover art, that should be the subject of the critical commentary]. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, [...] discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." The image meets these requierements, since many people only know the very popular version by Minogue, not the original one. In addition, the Minogue version is not simply mentioned in the article, but is largely discussed in an entire sourced section, so it complies with NFCC#8. And I didn't find a policy that explicitly forbids the use of a second cover if the latter is relevant. Europe22 ( talk) 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Unfortunately, "|Use = infobox" was used and is not a valid rationale because it is used for the header infobox, not the section infobox. I changed the rationale to reflect actual use. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • One cover art per article (even considering cover versions) is standard practice, pointed out in the footnote of NFCI#1. -- MASEM ( t) 13:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Kylie Minogue single cover is in a section infobox to represent a notable cover version and passes all of the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#1 is met because there is no free image that could be found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single cover is used for identification of the Kylie Minogue version and the Little Eva single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of this version. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of the Kylie Minogue version. The single cover passes the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The Kylie Minogue single cover is used for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how this cover version is a notable cover version. There does not need to be critical commentary of the Kylie Minogue single cover image, but of the item (cover version) itself. WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in one article, but if the Kylie Minogue cover version had its own article, the image would be acceptable there, so it should be acceptable in the its own section of the "The Loco-Motion." The Kylie Minogue single cover is not an alternate cover for the Little Eva cover, it is the primary cover for the Kylie Minogue version and should be treated as such. Aspects ( talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
NFCC#1 allows for a free alternative to be no image as well, and the reasoning for NFCC#8 is incorrect since there is zero discussion on the cover art and we already have one identifying image for the song. The reason for #3 is wrong as we already have an identifying image for this article, that of the original song. The reader's understanding is not harmed by removal of the image because there is no contextual significance that is given. This is facet that has long been used in practice for cover art (as listed at the RFCs named in NFCI#1's footnote) - an article on a published work gets one cover art for identification, but all subsequent covers (including remakes) must show discussion on the artwork itself or otherwise is unallowable. -- MASEM ( t) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NFCI §1 permits one image identifying the product "The Loco-Motion". This image appears to identify a different product: "Grand Funk Railroad version". Product images are usually not allowed in articles about other topics. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article." As the subject of the article isn't the "Grand Funk Railroad version", the image doesn't satisfy WP:NFCI §1 (and thus not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3a). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (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:"David Reo Music Producer.jpg".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 F7 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:"David Reo Music Producer.jpg".jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dobro77 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Very low quality, invalid license (not an album cover). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (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:David Reo, Guitarist, Songwriter, Musc Producer.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 F5 by Sherool ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:David Reo, Guitarist, Songwriter, Musc Producer.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dobro77 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low quality, invalid license (not a product cover). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (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:Img10A.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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Img10A.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joho35mm ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan-- appears to be under a free license, but has not yet been moved to commons. Not likely to be encyclopedic. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (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:Mark Truax.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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Mark Truax.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mickelias811 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Personal picture that shows up with Google search for a fake article created in 2005 71.255.36.47 ( talk) 13:24, 21 August 2013 (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:Original Simpsons Opening.ogv

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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Original Simpsons Opening.ogv ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NCFan12311 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It's the complete opening to a TV show. No way this can possibly be justified. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Absolutely fails minimal use standard, and no purpose for use stated. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but reduce size and show only a 30-second-or-less sample of the opening. I'm sure there still could be a way for this file to be use somewhere, its just not stated in the rationale. 和DITOR E tails 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm pretty sure that it would still fail WP:NFCC#8. We have an entire article that describes every bit of the opening, which already has enough fair-use stuff as it is. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:33, 24 August 2013 (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:Nostalgia Critic Opening.ogv

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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Nostalgia Critic Opening.ogv ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NCFan12311 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Again, we should not be hosting video files of opening themes. It's decoration, and fails the non-free content criteria. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Isn't this derivative of Transformers (Optimus Prime) and Judge Dredd (Dredd) ? -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support Fails WP:NFCC#8. Video is primarily there for decorative purposes. – Dream out loud ( talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (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:Unsyncopated off beat exam.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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Unsyncopated off beat exam.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyacinth ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

image was replaced with score wikitext 192.189.192.100 ( talk) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons just because we have editors that can maintain such code does not mean every other language Wikipedia does -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:47, 22 August 2013 (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:Off beat example other way.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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Off beat example other way.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyacinth ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

replaced with score wikitext 192.189.192.100 ( talk) 15:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons just because we have editors that can maintain such code does not mean every other language Wikipedia does. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 22 August 2013 (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:Radiusdesk.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 Leyo ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Radiusdesk.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muffycompo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned logo. Doesn't look useful for us. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (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:Deepdhudiya.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 Leyo ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Deepdhudiya.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deep Dhudiya ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned user photo. Out of scope. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (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:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf

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, because the file is tagged as Keep Local. Feel free to transfer to Wikisource as well, if you know how to do that. Diannaa ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Czech is Cyrillized ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Out of scope. Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to Wikisource The license seems Wikipedia/Wikimedia compatible. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:37, 22 August 2013 (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:Harmaline10.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, unused and duplicated by commons file File:Harmalin.svg. Deleted by Nthep ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Harmaline10.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Already have a bunch of SVG of Harmaline on commons, not seeing what this one adds that is different and of educational benefit (tagged for move-to-commons but likely would not survive deletion-discussion there). DMacks ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons an alternate representation. And there's no category on commons, so there aren't that many representations there. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Harmaline is sufficiently represented by File:Harmaline.svg, File:Harmalin.svg and File:Harmaline (small).svg. -- Leyo 07:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It seems more like it is insufficiently covered. Two of those are duplicates ( File:Harmaline (small).svg and File:Harmalin.svg), so there are only two actual representations on Commons. This representation is the difference between the two (form from Harmaline.svg, not labelling the methyls from Harmalin.svg) there should be a labelled methyl version for Harmalin.svg as well, but we don't have one. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (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:Dolasetron2D.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. "Tangled" geometry makes this representation too unclear to be used. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Dolasetron2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fairly tangled-looking core geometry. Compare to File:Dolasetron.svg already on commons that is quite clear. DMacks ( talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (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:Yohimbine2D.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. Incorrect chemical structure according to standards of represenation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Yohimbine2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Chemically incorrect...missing H on the left O and 5-membered-ring N. Have File:Yohimbine structure.svg on commons that is correct. DMacks ( talk) 21:04, 21 August 2013 (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:Granisetron2D.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 due to chemistry error in representation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Granisetron2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Geometric mistake (chemical error): NH bond to C on right ring cannot possibly be co-planar with the other bonds to that C. Hvae File:Granisetron.svg on commons that uses standard diagram style to illustrate it correctly. DMacks ( talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (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:Reboxetine2D.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 due to inappropriate chemical representation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Reboxetine2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unacceptable geometric diagram style per IUPAC because it is confusing/ambiguous: cannot be known for sure what the dotted bond means because it links two chiral atoms. Already have File:Reboxetine.svg and various others on commons. DMacks ( talk) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_21&oldid=1141915173"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.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: keep The article discusses several incarnations of "Loco-motion." The Little Eva, Grand Funk Railroad and Kylie Minogue versions were all significant. The topic is the song, not the original Little Eva version of the song or it would be titled The Loco-Motion (Little Eva version). The expanded discussion of the other versions of the song makes the additional cover art justifiable by the marketing, branding, and identification information that the other covers convey to the discussion of the cover versions of the subject of the article. Nv8200p talk 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Grand funk railroad loco motion.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by George Ho ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary cover art (cover version) of single The Loco-Motion, not subject of discussion of article, fails NFCC#1, #3a, #8. MASEM ( t) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • True, you can use a free image of the band as a substitute for this image. However, I uploaded the image just to help readers identify the product. If you omit this image, you would encourage others to remove such images, like the front cover of The Carpenters' rendition of the 1963 song " They Long to Be Close to You", first sung by Richard Chamberlain. Also, the File:Yvonne-elliman-if-i-cant-have-you-1978.jpg would be removed since the Bee Gees sang If I Can't Have You first. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yup, that should be the case, as we only have allowance for one cover art in an article per NFCI#1 (unless other cover art is the subject of discussion) -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the cover version is mentioned significantly in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Just because the cover version of the song is mentioned doesn't mean the cover needs to be included if there's no discussion about the cover art itself. We only allow cover art for the specific topic in question (under NFCI#1's allowance to meet NFCC#8), and that is about the original song, not the cover version. -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is in a section infobox to represent a notable cover version and passes all of the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#1 is met because there is no free image that could be found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single cover is used for identification of the Grand Funk Railroad version and the Little Eva single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of this version. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of the Grand Funk Railroad version. The single cover passes the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is used for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how this cover version is a notable cover version. There does not need to be critical commentary of the Grand Funk Railroad single cover image, but of the item (cover version) itself. WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in one article, but if the Grand Funk Railroad cover version had its own article, the image would be acceptable there, so it should be acceptable in the its own section of the "The Loco-Motion." The Grand Funk Railroad single cover is not an alternate cover for the Little Eva cover, it is the primary cover for the Grand Funk Railroad version and should be treated as such. Aspects ( talk) 05:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
As a side note, File:Tlm gfr1.jpg was the in the Grand Funk Railroad section infobox prior to its removal earlier this month and was uploaded to Wikipedia in November 2008. If the image in discussion is kept, this image should be deleted. Aspects ( talk) 05:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
NFCC#1 allows for a free alternative to be no image as well, and the reasoning for NFCC#8 is incorrect since there is zero discussion on the cover art and we already have one identifying image for the song. The reason for #3 is wrong as we already have an identifying image for this article, that of the original song. The reader's understanding is not harmed by removal of the image because there is no contextual significance that is given. This is facet that has long been used in practice for cover art (as listed at the RFCs named in NFCI#1's footnote) - an article on a published work gets one cover art for identification, but all subsequent covers (including remakes) must show discussion on the artwork itself or otherwise is unallowable. -- MASEM ( t) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete provided that the image meets the threshold of originality WP:NFCI §1 permits one image identifying the product "The Loco-Motion". This image appears to identify a different product: "Grand Funk Railroad version". Product images are usually not allowed in articles about other topics. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article." As the subject of the article isn't the "Grand Funk Railroad version", the image doesn't satisfy WP:NFCI §1 (and thus not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3a). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this image is not subject to copyright at all, since it does not meet the threshold of originality. It should be retagged as a free image. – Quadell ( talk) 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Nah, it has a copyrightable logo at the bottom. You probably missed it. George Ho ( talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The contents of the album are copyrighted. But the cover is just text. – Quadell ( talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (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:KylieLocomotionCover.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: keep The article discusses several incarnations of "Loco-motion." The Little Eva, Grand Funk Railroad and Kylie Minogue versions were all significant. The topic is the song, not the original Little Eva version of the song or it would be titled The Loco-Motion (Little Eva version). The expanded discussion of the other versions of the song makes the additional cover art justifiable by the marketing, branding, and identification information that the other covers convey to the discussion of the cover versions of the subject of the article. Nv8200p talk 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

File:KylieLocomotionCover.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheSameStar ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary cover art (cover version) of single The Loco-Motion, not subject of discussion of article, fails NFCC#1, #3a, #8. MASEM ( t) 00:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

If the cover song is really notable, it could have its own article where the cover art then can be used under NFCI#1's allowance. -- MASEM ( t) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The text used in the FUR template, in the "purpose" section, states: "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art [this means that it is the song, not its cover art, that should be the subject of the critical commentary]. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, [...] discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." The image meets these requierements, since many people only know the very popular version by Minogue, not the original one. In addition, the Minogue version is not simply mentioned in the article, but is largely discussed in an entire sourced section, so it complies with NFCC#8. And I didn't find a policy that explicitly forbids the use of a second cover if the latter is relevant. Europe22 ( talk) 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Unfortunately, "|Use = infobox" was used and is not a valid rationale because it is used for the header infobox, not the section infobox. I changed the rationale to reflect actual use. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • One cover art per article (even considering cover versions) is standard practice, pointed out in the footnote of NFCI#1. -- MASEM ( t) 13:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The Kylie Minogue single cover is in a section infobox to represent a notable cover version and passes all of the points of WP:NFCC. WP:NFCC#1 is met because there is no free image that could be found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. WP:NFCC#3 is met because the single cover is used for identification of the Kylie Minogue version and the Little Eva single cover cannot convey equivalent significant information and/or identification of this version. WP:NFCC#8 is met because the single cover is used for identification and the image increases readers' understanding and not having it would be detrimental to the understanding of the Kylie Minogue version. The single cover passes the first example of acceptable use of fair images at WP:NFCI: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The Kylie Minogue single cover is used for identification in the context of critical commentary as to how this cover version is a notable cover version. There does not need to be critical commentary of the Kylie Minogue single cover image, but of the item (cover version) itself. WP:SONGCOVER says notable cover versions should be covered in one article, but if the Kylie Minogue cover version had its own article, the image would be acceptable there, so it should be acceptable in the its own section of the "The Loco-Motion." The Kylie Minogue single cover is not an alternate cover for the Little Eva cover, it is the primary cover for the Kylie Minogue version and should be treated as such. Aspects ( talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
NFCC#1 allows for a free alternative to be no image as well, and the reasoning for NFCC#8 is incorrect since there is zero discussion on the cover art and we already have one identifying image for the song. The reason for #3 is wrong as we already have an identifying image for this article, that of the original song. The reader's understanding is not harmed by removal of the image because there is no contextual significance that is given. This is facet that has long been used in practice for cover art (as listed at the RFCs named in NFCI#1's footnote) - an article on a published work gets one cover art for identification, but all subsequent covers (including remakes) must show discussion on the artwork itself or otherwise is unallowable. -- MASEM ( t) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NFCI §1 permits one image identifying the product "The Loco-Motion". This image appears to identify a different product: "Grand Funk Railroad version". Product images are usually not allowed in articles about other topics. See for example MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and the footnote to WP:NFCI §1: "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article." As the subject of the article isn't the "Grand Funk Railroad version", the image doesn't satisfy WP:NFCI §1 (and thus not WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#3a). -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (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:"David Reo Music Producer.jpg".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 F7 by Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:"David Reo Music Producer.jpg".jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dobro77 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Very low quality, invalid license (not an album cover). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (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:David Reo, Guitarist, Songwriter, Musc Producer.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 F5 by Sherool ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:David Reo, Guitarist, Songwriter, Musc Producer.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dobro77 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low quality, invalid license (not a product cover). Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (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:Img10A.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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Img10A.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Joho35mm ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphan-- appears to be under a free license, but has not yet been moved to commons. Not likely to be encyclopedic. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (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:Mark Truax.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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Mark Truax.JPG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mickelias811 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Personal picture that shows up with Google search for a fake article created in 2005 71.255.36.47 ( talk) 13:24, 21 August 2013 (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:Original Simpsons Opening.ogv

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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Original Simpsons Opening.ogv ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NCFan12311 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

It's the complete opening to a TV show. No way this can possibly be justified. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Absolutely fails minimal use standard, and no purpose for use stated. ( ESkog)( Talk) 03:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but reduce size and show only a 30-second-or-less sample of the opening. I'm sure there still could be a way for this file to be use somewhere, its just not stated in the rationale. 和DITOR E tails 15:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm pretty sure that it would still fail WP:NFCC#8. We have an entire article that describes every bit of the opening, which already has enough fair-use stuff as it is. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:33, 24 August 2013 (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:Nostalgia Critic Opening.ogv

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 Diannaa ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Nostalgia Critic Opening.ogv ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NCFan12311 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Again, we should not be hosting video files of opening themes. It's decoration, and fails the non-free content criteria. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Isn't this derivative of Transformers (Optimus Prime) and Judge Dredd (Dredd) ? -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support Fails WP:NFCC#8. Video is primarily there for decorative purposes. – Dream out loud ( talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (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:Unsyncopated off beat exam.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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Unsyncopated off beat exam.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyacinth ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

image was replaced with score wikitext 192.189.192.100 ( talk) 15:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons just because we have editors that can maintain such code does not mean every other language Wikipedia does -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:47, 22 August 2013 (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:Off beat example other way.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 Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Off beat example other way.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hyacinth ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

replaced with score wikitext 192.189.192.100 ( talk) 15:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons just because we have editors that can maintain such code does not mean every other language Wikipedia does. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 22 August 2013 (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:Radiusdesk.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 Leyo ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Radiusdesk.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Muffycompo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned logo. Doesn't look useful for us. Stefan2 ( talk) 15:49, 21 August 2013 (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:Deepdhudiya.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 Leyo ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Deepdhudiya.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Deep Dhudiya ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned user photo. Out of scope. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (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:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf

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, because the file is tagged as Keep Local. Feel free to transfer to Wikisource as well, if you know how to do that. Diannaa ( talk) 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Czech is Cyrillized ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Out of scope. Wikipedia is not Wikisource. Stefan2 ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Transwiki to Wikisource The license seems Wikipedia/Wikimedia compatible. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:37, 22 August 2013 (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:Harmaline10.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, unused and duplicated by commons file File:Harmalin.svg. Deleted by Nthep ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

File:Harmaline10.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Already have a bunch of SVG of Harmaline on commons, not seeing what this one adds that is different and of educational benefit (tagged for move-to-commons but likely would not survive deletion-discussion there). DMacks ( talk) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Move to commons an alternate representation. And there's no category on commons, so there aren't that many representations there. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 03:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Harmaline is sufficiently represented by File:Harmaline.svg, File:Harmalin.svg and File:Harmaline (small).svg. -- Leyo 07:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It seems more like it is insufficiently covered. Two of those are duplicates ( File:Harmaline (small).svg and File:Harmalin.svg), so there are only two actual representations on Commons. This representation is the difference between the two (form from Harmaline.svg, not labelling the methyls from Harmalin.svg) there should be a labelled methyl version for Harmalin.svg as well, but we don't have one. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2013 (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:Dolasetron2D.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. "Tangled" geometry makes this representation too unclear to be used. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Dolasetron2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fairly tangled-looking core geometry. Compare to File:Dolasetron.svg already on commons that is quite clear. DMacks ( talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (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:Yohimbine2D.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. Incorrect chemical structure according to standards of represenation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Yohimbine2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Chemically incorrect...missing H on the left O and 5-membered-ring N. Have File:Yohimbine structure.svg on commons that is correct. DMacks ( talk) 21:04, 21 August 2013 (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:Granisetron2D.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 due to chemistry error in representation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Granisetron2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Geometric mistake (chemical error): NH bond to C on right ring cannot possibly be co-planar with the other bonds to that C. Hvae File:Granisetron.svg on commons that uses standard diagram style to illustrate it correctly. DMacks ( talk) 21:06, 21 August 2013 (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:Reboxetine2D.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 due to inappropriate chemical representation. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Reboxetine2D.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Fuse809 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unacceptable geometric diagram style per IUPAC because it is confusing/ambiguous: cannot be known for sure what the dotted bond means because it links two chiral atoms. Already have File:Reboxetine.svg and various others on commons. DMacks ( talk) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_21&oldid=1141915173"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE