Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

File:Saccharopine.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality (MOS and fileformat) and unused; have commons:File:Saccharopine.svg as usable replacement; trivial to redraw any other orientation or as png if needed for a WP or other-pedia purpose. DMacks (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom. BTW: There is a PNG version here. ;-) --Leyo 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inappropriate file type/compression, does not meet

WP:CSDG guidelines. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. mabdul 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kit body amber stripes.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned image, can't imagine the use of this... mabdul 10:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rasterization of

SVG}} (and I believe still is). That being said I don't really care wether whether it's deleted or not. Tim 1357 ^talk 19:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Then should the PNG deleted after replacement. Since this is a template, I'm not really familiar with. mabdul 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lady Gaga - You & I.ogg

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 ⚡ 03:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound clip is not discussed at all in the article on the song, no indication as to why this clip is important or representative of the song. It's just been thrown in there as fluff, which goes against the fair use criteria.

Wha? 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --B (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sound clip must not necessarily be discussed. Here it is an illustration of the song, just as album covers are not discussed in articles about albums. Short clips are well within fair use. And it is not a fluff: it may be used to double check statements about the song: that it is slow, A major, etc. Also, it helps to identify the song. Many people don't know all song titles, but can hum a tune :-) Lorem Ip (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:6helicene.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 ⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, low quality, orphaned chemical structure that has been replaced by a high-quality, correct structure. Slashme (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. commons:File:-6-helicene.svg looks fine. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom. --Leyo 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mabdul 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the nominator has made a good point, and you don't have any other arguments to add, you don't necessarily have to

talk 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ketaminpics.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, orphaned, poor quality image Slashme (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per nom. File:Ketamine Structural Formulae.png is a better alternative. --Leyo 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chemically incorrect and unused except in talkpage discussion of how they are incorrect (leading to replacement with alt correct images). DMacks (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. mabdul 17:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Junichi Kanemaru on vacation.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low-quality drawing of a (person? Character?). Photo or at least higher-quality image would be more appropriate. –

T • C • L) 19:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

delete useless. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Ahps.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 ⚡ 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have much better quality AHPS maps like

talk 22:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, orphan and unused, also bad quality. mabdul 16:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Content Analysis of two UN Speeches, Iran-U.S..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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also

Self-promotion of Original Research by user:Mr man1951 (Charles S. Herrman). Part of my massive clean-up after his invasion into wikipedia . Lorem Ip (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, these don't appear to have any encyclopedic use. They were used to illustrate the linked article but it was deleted for notability/original research reasons. Hut 8.5 23:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather useless, partly bad quality. mabdul 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.