< February 18	February 20 >

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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by LEIA Inc LOGO.png Pauline cristofari (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ★ Bigr Tex 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically replaceable (NFCC#1 doesn't require it to be easy; it just requires it to be possible ["Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."]; we've deleted non-free images of political prisoners who've spent dozens of years in prison in the middle of a jungle). I previously DI'd this, but was reverted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion expressed in the FU rationale that it would be illegal to create a replacement strikes me as a strong one. Samsara 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illegal to create a replacement in every country in the world? If it is legal to create a replacement image in at least one country, then that rationale is invalid. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not if that country doesn't have the facilities needed for radon purification. Samsara 20:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities can be constructed. Anyway, whether creating a replacement is legal or not seems to be irrelevant. For example, Wikipedia does not accept non-free photographs of modern French buildings. Instead, Wikipedia requires someone to, in violation of French law, take a photograph of the building and upload it to Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the case you allude to, but there are clearly circumstances in which the WMF could be forced to remove an image even though there are no copyright problems, and the reason for removal could very well be related to the reason why taking the picture was illegal in the first place. Samsara 07:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the file is kept, it will have to be removed from Template:Infobox radon per NFCC#9. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Didn't see why that should wait. Samsara 06:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made it so that it doesn't appear on the template page, but will appear when transcluded in the article. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous NFC review of this file itself from latish 2013: Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 35#File:Radon.jpg. Has anything changed about the availability of this material or the feasibility/likelihood of someone having/making a free replacement picture? Are there any new arguments being made here now? DMacks (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one seems fairly simple to me as an NFCC#1 failure, and not because it is possible for someone to recreate this image. This is not an image of radon but an image of Radioluminescence caused by radon. The Polonium example is different as that substance can be seen and shown, radon can't. We can't display colourless gasses and already use free images for radio luminescence. Oxygen lacks an image of it in its gaseous state, as like Radon you can't see it, and the radio luminescence can be shown with a free image of the effect. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely remove from Noble gas per WP:NFCC#8: In that article, it's just used in a gallery of noble gasses and while it looks pretty to show similar pictures of all of the noble gasses, that's not an acceptable use on Wikipedia. Weak delete from radon. The article does at least discuss radioluminescence of radon so, unlike with Noble gas, NFCC#8 is less of an issue. I say less of an issue because the image is not actually being used to illustrate radioluminescence - it's being used in the infobox. Something like File:Electron shell 086 Radon - no label.svg would suffice to be an infobox representative of the element. If the image were being used to illustrate radioluminescence of radon, I'd have more sympathy there, but it's not - it's being used like a stock photo of radon and we could do that with something else. And at least one problem with using this image under a claim of fair use is that we completely eliminate the incentive for anyone to EVER give us a free one. If the national laboratory potentially works with radon and could, if we asked nicely and they were so inclined, give us an image under acceptable terms, there is a 0.0% chance of that happening so long as we are willing to use an image under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from Template:Periodic table (noble gases) as suggested [1]. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for radon itself--it seems to be the best (only?) actual photograph someone has found that is as close as possible to the article's topic. The molecular-diagram image for oxygen (Peripitus's note) is a recent change, and at odds with all the other gaseous-element articles I checked. For example, nitrogen uses the liquid form (which is also what oxygen had until a few weeks ago), and more to the point, all of the other noble gases (the same group as radon) use discharge-tube emisssion photographs. Oxygen (with image of its liquid, even though that's an uncommon way to have the element) and hydrogen, helium, and xenon (with their discharge pictures) passed FA with those images in 2008 (with hyrogen's and helium's FA status renewed less than a year ago with those images). If the concern is that it's more specifically/solely about the emission (which is noted as actually being discussed in the article), I would only weakly object to it being moved there rather than remaining as the iconic/only image available of the whole topic (not just one aspect of it). I would be okay with removal (as gallery) from the group article (same as how polonium's image is not in Chalcogen. DMacks (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of an existence of a free image is not enough to satisfy NFCC#1, as a free image could be created. It would be very expensive to do, and the timing would need to be good, but it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes and no. Prior to Osama bin Laden's death, we used an image of him under a claim of fair use because it was practically impossible to obtain a free one, even though the probability was not zero. But with the image of radon, you're missing a very important point of NFCC#1. The criterion does NOT say that we use a fair use image if it is impossible to obtain an identical free one - it says we use a fair use image if a free one cannot be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. What is the encyclopedic purpose of this image? If that encyclopedic purpose is to discuss photoluminescence of radon, okay, fine, but that's not how the picture is being used. The picture is sitting in an infobox and its purpose is to give us a pretty picture that we can identify as radon. An electron shell diagram serves that same encyclopedic purpose. --B (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the underlying meta:Resolution:Licensing policy explicitly sets the standard as "reasonableness" not "completely impossible at any cost or method". And that's the same standard by which polonium had consensus to keep. Question: would an image of a glass tube known to contain a substantial concentration of the clear and colorless gas as part of a system that is seen in a system known to be actively producing that gas into the tube suffice as a more proper illustration of the gas itself (resolving all complaints that the image is not allowed for the infobox)? DMacks (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notified WikiProject Elements about this FfD discussion. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - - It this hypothetical glass tube a freely licensed image or a fair use image? If freely licensed, then that's preferred any day of the week to what is in there now. The manner in which the image is used is simply as an infobox photo that represents radon. Anything — a picture of a tube that contains radon, an electron diagram, a picture of a radon detector or radon collector or radon generator or whatever gizmo might relate to radon, etc — would serve that same encyclopedic purpose, but be freely licensed. --B (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm trying to get a feel for what would suffice for various others' concerns. I certainly agree that if it were free, it would be a no-brainer except for a context of actually discussing the emission or other object/details of the nonfree itself. More substantively, what if it were not free? Would it just be a different and equally objectionable item that would only be useable in the context of a discussion of the tube or apparatus itself? Does not actually being able to see' the radon make it fail NFCC for being in infobox? DMacks (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If the hypothetical image were non-free, I don't think the objection is any different and which one to use would be more an editorial question than a policy one. --B (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely from everywhere; halt and catch fire. It is easy to get fooled by "samples" of elements – I remember one time where I uploaded what looked like a fair use image of astatine from Guinness World Records, only to find out that it was just pitchblende. But hey, maybe we could get a free replacement: anyone with the laboratory equipment to produce it in macroscopic quantities? Parcly Taxel 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems pretty WP:V to be what it says it is, a policy that requires we trust reliable sources rather than assume that they are usually making mis-statements (you are talking about a different source, and seem to be throwing out the whole of WP:RS). But to answer your specific question, the idea of being able to get macroscopic quantities seems pretty well disputed (see also, the polonium precedent). DMacks (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for two reasons:
This file serves as a good example of what radon gas looks like when it is lit up in a tube.
There are very few search results on Google Images that are like this one, so it would be a shame to lose this.

In my opinion, it would be highly inappropriate to delete this file. ——ApparatumLover (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi ApparatumLover, the reasons for retaining or deleting the image are not related to editorial discretion. Rather, the concern is whether this image qualifies under our policy for using images under a claim of fair use. --B (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Osama precedent. Samsara 11:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is what exactly? With Osama, the only reasonable way to represent him was a photograph of him. With radon, we could represent radon with an electron diagram, a gizmo that detects radon, or some other photograph that a friendly scientist might choose to provide us with at some point in the future. --B (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: Unlikely to be own work – as similar files have been uploaded to Commons, "personal archives" rather seems to stand for "I got a print of that photo" than "I took the photo", if anything. FDMS 4 15:21, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better quality SVG exists on commons at c:File:Wikiproject sharks logo.svg Arthunter (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better quality SVG version exists on commons at c:File:WikiProject Hawaii.svg Arthunter (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reh man 07:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete c:File:WikiProject Hawaii.svg supercedes this file. Begoon ^talk 14:55, 27 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 12:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused media file. Also, superseded by an alternative vector version. Rubber Duck (☮ • ✍) 16:29, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 11:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better quality SVG version exists on commons at c:File:White illusion.svg Arthunter (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 07:11, 22 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 09:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better quality PNG version exists on commons at c:File:Verisign-dotnet-logo-white.png Arthunter (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete, per nom. Reh man 07:10, 22 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 09:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - image does not convey any information to the reader that can't be provided by text. The fair use rationale is boilerplate and useless. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 09:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid fair use rationale. We have several photos of Podesta available here. APK whisper in my ear 20:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep a non-free file of this person per WP:NFCC#1. If the uploader is the copyright holder they should send permission to WP:OTRS. Kelly ^hi! 23:07, 20 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 09:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR: "No Other photo of the tank is currently available." eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (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.

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 ⚡ 09:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of copyrighted logo. Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 07:09, 22 February 2015 (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.

February 19

File:File Logo of LEIA Inc.jpg

File:Radon.jpg

File:Ahmadu Bello2.jpg

File:Wikiproject sharks logo.png

File:WikiProject Hawaii.png

File:The graph y = √x.png

File:White illusion.png

File:Verisign-dotnet-logo-white.jpg

File:Translink-busscheds.jpg

File:Heather Podesta 2013.jpg

File:Altay MBT Mock-up.jpg

File:Mightyrubberduck.jpg