Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 10



File:Windows Media Player for Mac.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Windows Media Player for Mac.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by AlistairMcMillan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The inclusion of the Face the Nation screenshot in this screenshot is entirely gratuitous and violates WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. In addition, the image fails WP:NFCC in Windows Media Player. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 04:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I entirely agree with the point about the television screenshot.  The non-fair use criterion applied to the image page states that the image can be used, "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents".  That is clearly not the case here.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Aftermath Of Destroying State Building In Southern Mexico.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Aftermath Of Destroying State Building In Southern Mexico.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by National Names 2000 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Disputed non-free rationale; no discussion of the event in the article, so no contextual significance. My DI tagging was reverted unilaterally by the uploader without addressing the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: The image page claims that the copyright owner of the image has given permission for its use.  Howver, there is no evidence that this is the case.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Coca cola Bottle.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Coca cola Bottle.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Curioushavedape ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image of unclear source. There is a fair use rationale template which lists as source, but the image does not appear there. Earlier revisions of the file information page list this as 'own work by the uploader', and there is a photo of art template which contradicts with the coca-colastore.com URL. The bottle itself is PD-ineligible, so the question is where the photograph comes from. If it comes from coca-colastore.com, then the picture fails WP:NFCC. Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the image does not appear there now is not evidence that it did not originate from the source claimed. That web site is constantly changing.  The source of the image is most likely coca-cola themselves who run the stated web site.


 * I fail to follow your argument that the picture fails WP:NFCC. It is precisely because there is no free equivalent, that the image is allowable.  The criterion is, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose".  It is not possible to create a free alternative as the coca-cola bottle design is not in the public domain.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Carter-system.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: Keep.  TLSuda  (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Carter-system.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Wtshymanski ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is outdated and no longer used by any Wikiproject. Has been superseded by and corrected in Carter System in animated gif format, and is now on Commons (and with credit given to original author). KDS 4444 Talk  21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What does "Image is outdated " mean and why is that a policy-based reason to delete anything? Firstly it isn't any such thing, merely that the deletion nominator has created a derivative of it (without making that personal involvement apparent) and now wants to delete the original.
 * Secondly, SVG is a preferred format to an animated GIF in several ways: it's vector based, not bitmap, it's not animated (animation is not always appropriate) and it's not .gif  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess by "Image outdated" I meant "Image was incorrect/ had technical errors" which I fixed in the GIF version of the image— for which I would gladly take all of the credit for making, leaving the original author none, if you prefer it that way. I tried to give the original author credit as a courtesy but if you feel that is deceptive then that is easily enough fixed.  As for policy, see WP:DELETE item 12 which specifically states that outdated and unused files should be deleted.  If you think this image should be kept, then fine.  It has errors and should not be used for that reason alone, and I was listing it here as a housekeeping move, nothing more.  And while I fully understand the value of SVG diagrams and have made several myself that have gone on to become Featured Pictures, the animated nature of the GIF image conveys something critical in this case which the SVG cannot: change.  Until I made the GIF file I wasn't entirely certain myself how these switches worked.  Now I understand.  The animated GIF made that a thousand times easier.  Retaining the SVG file makes little enough difference to me.
 * What are the "technical errors" (in either SVG) that you have fixed? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, there is nothing technically wrong with the original images. And prior to seeing this, I had restored the original images to the article on the grounds that .svg graphics are much preferred over other formats, and animated formats are deprecated because they cannot be printed. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The constant flashing in different colours makes the GIF unsuitable in combination with text (such as the text in the article Multiway switching) as it makes the reader unfocused, making it more difficult to read the text. The SVG does a better job in that it provides the same understanding but without affecting the reading of the text. Besides, SVG is the preferred file format for pictures like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for putting the SVG file, which had errors like the previous image, back in the article, not for retaining the SVG file on Wikipedia. I believe the GIF image conveys much more information that the SVG, does it better than the text does, and does it slightly more accurately than the SVG.  I could slow down the animation if you think that would make it seem less like it is flashing, but again, none of this has to do with retaining or deleting the original SVG file.  KDS 4444  Talk  12:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not any more accurate. The information conveyed is exactly the same.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:California-3-way.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: Keep.  TLSuda  (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:California-3-way.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Wtshymanski ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is obsolete and is no longer in use by any Wikiproject. Has been superseded by and corrected in California-3-way switch animation to which the same author is credited and which exists on Commons. KDS 4444 Talk  22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep What does "Image is outdated " mean and why is that a policy-based reason to delete anything? Firstly it isn't "obsolete", merely that the deletion nominator has created a derivative of it (without making that personal involvement apparent) and now wants to delete the original.
 * Secondly, SVG is a preferred format to an animated GIF in several ways: it's vector based, not bitmap, it's not animated (animation is not always appropriate) and it's not .gif  Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. KDS 4444  Talk  13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See above for response. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The constant flashing in different colours makes the GIF unsuitable in combination with text (such as the text in the article Multiway switching) as it makes the reader unfocused, making it more difficult to read the text. The SVG does a better job in that it provides the same understanding but without affecting the reading of the text. Besides, SVG is the preferred file format for pictures like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. KDS 4444  Talk  13:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See above for response. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:Rosenbloom.Maxie.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 AnomieBOT ⚡  18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Rosenbloom.Maxie.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Dcw2003 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Redundant extra picture, see WP:NFCC. We only need one picture of him. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.