Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 24[edit]
File:6xhh4e8.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G3 by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to waste time on this user, whom I have blocked indef. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC) File:6xhh4e8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Niggtopia (notify | contribs | uploads).[reply]
- Unencyclopedic, inflammatory, obvious trolling from a user who has made no other contributions besides this image. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Stonemason89 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:HPIM0317.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:HPIM0317.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by NeroN BG (notify | contribs | uploads).
- No encyclopedic value. Described as "a typical sight", and we have only the uploader's personal opinion for that, and objectively, it could be anywhere. In short, it doesn't tell us anything much. Rodhullandemu 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Toronto-dvp-route.png[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Toronto-dvp-route.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Alaney2k (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Replaced by free equivalent File:Dvp_proposed.svg ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No Consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Mbz1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- When uploaded, the image was automatically tagged with {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} and deleted a few days late, which the uploader contested. Brought it here for further input. — ξxplicit 05:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very low resolution of a very, very unique, one of a kind image. It was taken in Antarctica by the members of mixed Israeli-Palestinian expedition team. This image cannot be replaced with a free equivalent, and it adds big value to the article it appears into.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Rocketmail.png[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rocketmail.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sy234sn (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unambiguous violation of Wikipedia Non-Free Content Criterion 3a (“Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.”) . File File:Rocketmails.png is more than sufficient to replace this file, especially since both these files are used in the same article only. Fleet Command (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:20100502 005950 CandidaAlbicans.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:20100502 005950 CandidaAlbicans.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bob Blaylock (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This looks nothing like Candida albicans. The image has a poor provenance and has chromatic and optical aberrations. Graham Colm (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You don't think my image that is clearly of a neutrophil looks like a neutrophil; you don't think my image of Gram-stained bacteria look like Gram-stained bacteria, and you don't think my image of Candida albicans looks like Candida albicans. I have to wonder what qualifications you think you have to make the claims you have about these images. This one, I have to admit, is under some small amount of doubt. My identification is based primarily on knowing where it came from (a woman who was known to be suffering from a “yeast infection” that was subsequently treated successfully with an over-the-counter medication specifically intended to treat Candida albicans infections), together with a comparison of this sample with what information and images I was able to find on the Internet of Candida albicans and similar fungi. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not Candida albicans, the quality of image is very poor but it looks more like a species of Penicillium. Wikipedia is not a repository and because it is impossible to identify this specimen it has no parent article and should be deleted. It is not accurate to base the identification on the source of the specimen being a women "suffering from a yeast infection". Graham Colm (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You don't think my image that is clearly of a neutrophil looks like a neutrophil; you don't think my image of Gram-stained bacteria look like Gram-stained bacteria, and you don't think my image of Candida albicans looks like Candida albicans. I have to wonder what qualifications you think you have to make the claims you have about these images. This one, I have to admit, is under some small amount of doubt. My identification is based primarily on knowing where it came from (a woman who was known to be suffering from a “yeast infection” that was subsequently treated successfully with an over-the-counter medication specifically intended to treat Candida albicans infections), together with a comparison of this sample with what information and images I was able to find on the Internet of Candida albicans and similar fungi. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Diamonds are forever japanese album cover.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Diamonds are forever japanese album cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rockercar32 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Fails WP:NFCC#3 as multiple non-free files are being used when one would suffice. This alternate album cover is not significantly different from the main cover to require or justify its use. — ξxplicit 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:20100417 024116 Conidiophore.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:20100417 024116 Conidiophore.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bob Blaylock (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This is a very low quality image with an unacceptable provenance. It is not possible to correctly identify the object shown. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll concede on this one. It is exactly what I say it is, but I am not sure what kind of “provenance” you think it needs to establish that. It was a fuzzy green mold (That's nearly always Penicillium, right?), growing in a Petri dish, and I took this picture by putting the entire Petri dish on my microscope, which makes it considerably more difficult to get a good image compared to looking at something on a proper slide. In any event, I admit that the image quality leaves much to be desired. I'm still trying to figure out how to get good pictures of mold. The trick seems to be in getting the mold out of the Petri dish and on to a slide without destroying, in the process, the structures I wish to observe and photograph. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not "nearly always penicillium". If that were the case my job would be much easier. There are numerous species of fungi that have a green pigmentation, Aspergillus flavus for example. This is an encyclopedia, we can't just guess. Graham Colm (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Try sellotape, gently apply it to the fungus and then stick it on a microscope slide on which a drop of stain has already been added. Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS. Lactophenol cotton blue stain gives good results. [1] Graham Colm (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Try sellotape, gently apply it to the fungus and then stick it on a microscope slide on which a drop of stain has already been added. Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not "nearly always penicillium". If that were the case my job would be much easier. There are numerous species of fungi that have a green pigmentation, Aspergillus flavus for example. This is an encyclopedia, we can't just guess. Graham Colm (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll concede on this one. It is exactly what I say it is, but I am not sure what kind of “provenance” you think it needs to establish that. It was a fuzzy green mold (That's nearly always Penicillium, right?), growing in a Petri dish, and I took this picture by putting the entire Petri dish on my microscope, which makes it considerably more difficult to get a good image compared to looking at something on a proper slide. In any event, I admit that the image quality leaves much to be desired. I'm still trying to figure out how to get good pictures of mold. The trick seems to be in getting the mold out of the Petri dish and on to a slide without destroying, in the process, the structures I wish to observe and photograph. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:20100404 205709 BacteriaFromKitchenSponge.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:20100404 205709 BacteriaFromKitchenSponge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bob Blaylock (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This image has little value. It suffers from optical and chromatic aberrations. It does not resemble a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria at all. Graham Colm (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that this image has no value. The Sponge_(material) article has a section about sponges harboring bacteria, so it seemed obvious to me that an image of bacteria from a sponge would be relevant to this section. I do not know on what basis Mr. Colm is asserting that this “does not resemble a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria at all”; but it is, in fact, a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria, and that is exactly what it looks like. This image was taken using a dry-objective optical microscope; and the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument. It's certainly good enough to make the point that it was intended to make; which was to illustrate the bacteria found growing in a sponge. I could possibly see a case to be made that there is no need for the Sponge_(material) to have the section on “Harboring bacteria”, in which case, there'd be no need for this image either; but this doesn't appear to be what Mr. Colm is asserting. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality of this image is so poor that it is not possible to say what these particles are - they could be dust. The Gram stain is not specific for bacteria; it will stain almost anything. What the Gram stain does do well is differentiate bacilli and cocci with a clear morphology into their Gram-positive and Gram-negative varieties. The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen. To produce micrographs of Gram-stained bacteria oil immersion objectives are needed, it is not a valid argument to say "the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument". This is like taking a photograph of the moon with a mobile phone and saying that it is best that can be done without a telescope. There is also a concern regarding original research. Graham Colm (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- “The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen.” I disagree. The image very clearly shows spherical particles, uniformly approximately 1¾ to 2 µM in diameter. Dust is not that uniform, nor that consistently spherical. I think it is obvious that what are shown in this image are cocci-type bacteria
As for “Original Reasearch”, see wp:OI. Quoting therefrom:
I think it is clear that neither this image, nor any of the others for which you've made the “Original Research” argument, “illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments.” — Bob Blaylock (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments…
- “The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen.” I disagree. The image very clearly shows spherical particles, uniformly approximately 1¾ to 2 µM in diameter. Dust is not that uniform, nor that consistently spherical. I think it is obvious that what are shown in this image are cocci-type bacteria
- The quality of this image is so poor that it is not possible to say what these particles are - they could be dust. The Gram stain is not specific for bacteria; it will stain almost anything. What the Gram stain does do well is differentiate bacilli and cocci with a clear morphology into their Gram-positive and Gram-negative varieties. The morphology of the particles shown in this image cannot be clearly seen. To produce micrographs of Gram-stained bacteria oil immersion objectives are needed, it is not a valid argument to say "the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument". This is like taking a photograph of the moon with a mobile phone and saying that it is best that can be done without a telescope. There is also a concern regarding original research. Graham Colm (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that this image has no value. The Sponge_(material) article has a section about sponges harboring bacteria, so it seemed obvious to me that an image of bacteria from a sponge would be relevant to this section. I do not know on what basis Mr. Colm is asserting that this “does not resemble a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria at all”; but it is, in fact, a preparation of Gram-stained bacteria, and that is exactly what it looks like. This image was taken using a dry-objective optical microscope; and the quality is about as good as one can reasonably expect of such an instrument. It's certainly good enough to make the point that it was intended to make; which was to illustrate the bacteria found growing in a sponge. I could possibly see a case to be made that there is no need for the Sponge_(material) to have the section on “Harboring bacteria”, in which case, there'd be no need for this image either; but this doesn't appear to be what Mr. Colm is asserting. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:20090808 163802 NeutrophilGranulocyte WhiteBloodCell.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:20090808 163802 NeutrophilGranulocyte WhiteBloodCell.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bob Blaylock (notify | contribs | uploads).
- This is a very poor image of a "neutrophil." It is described as a composite image that has been substantially manipulated by editing software. It has little resemblance to the white blood cells of this type. Graham Colm (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep “Poor quality” compared to what? It appears to me to be at least of comparable quality to the other neutrophil image in the Neutrophil granulocyte article.
And I don't see what the objection is to it as a “composite image that has been substantially manipulated by editing software”. It'd be one thing if there was evidence that the image had been manipulated to alter its appearance in a deceptive manner, but I think it is clear enough that this is not the case here. Not to admit that I think I'm always obligated to do so, but in this instance, the file description contains a very detailed explanation as to exactly what was done with this image, and why. The purpose was to produce a better-quality image, with better resolution, than what I was able to get from a single image.
And as for the claim that this image “has little resemblance to the white blood cells of this type”, I think anyone who compares this image with the other extant image on the Neutrophil granulocyte article can see that both images are of exactly the same type of cell; with the most significant difference between them being different coloring, as a result of different staining methods being used; mine was stained using Wright's stain, while the other was reportedly stained with MayGrunwald Giemsa. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Wikipedia is not a repository and this image is obsolete. It is out of focus and has chromatic aberration. We have quality images of polymorphonuclear leukocytes and there is no need for this poor one. Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep “Poor quality” compared to what? It appears to me to be at least of comparable quality to the other neutrophil image in the Neutrophil granulocyte article.
- 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.