Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 29
Appearance
October 29
- Perfectblue97 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This image is an illustration which contravenes original research policy. Specifically: "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed. The image is not verifiably claimed by any notable group. The axes are unlabeled and the rationale for why this would be EVP and not something else is totally absent. ScienceApologist 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read the actual policy at Wp:or#Original_images. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I quoted that policy. ScienceApologist 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read the rest. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's the last sentence! There is no rest. The stuff before it is irrelevant to this particular image which itself represents original research of the kind described in the sentence I quoted. ScienceApologist 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read what comes before it.
- It's an Illustration:"An Illustration is a visualisation such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form. The aim of an illustration is to elucidate or decorate a story, poem or piece of textual information (such as a newspaper article), traditionally by providing a visual representation of something described in the text."
- This should be sufficient for others here, so I'll probably not debate it further. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's nice that you have quoted to us the definition of an illustration. Now for the win, perhaps you can explain how this image doesn't constitute original research since perfectblue is claiming that it is an example of EVP? If I uploaded a grainy picture of my bedroom with a lens flare and said it was a picture of a ghost, would that be an acceptable illustration? ScienceApologist 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's the last sentence! There is no rest. The stuff before it is irrelevant to this particular image which itself represents original research of the kind described in the sentence I quoted. ScienceApologist 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read the rest. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I quoted that policy. ScienceApologist 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's original research and needs to go. Baegis 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The nominator's logic is sound, and I would agree that the OR exclusion for images is violated in this case and this particular image would not be exempt from OR. Delete. Cumulus Clouds 04:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Image claims to be nothing and something at the same time. Equivalent narratives would be termed editorialising, I fail to see how this is different. Would recommend it be replaced by a real EVP image ((if one exists), surely with all the publications on the subject, there is something? Shot info 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The image summary reads: 'A self generated image of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything.' Not only is it OR, because it describes itself as an image of something whose existence is in doubt and was, as far as I can tell, an original production by the uploader, but it then disingenuously denies being OR. Cardamon 07:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- delete as unencyclopedic. dab (𒁳) 08:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Incorrect, useless, map not used in any articles. Strothra 05:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Image:MowDNA.png and Image:Cartoonmow.png
- - uploaded by NeoNecronox (notify | contribs).
- Deserve same fate as the Mows article. -- RHaworth 06:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oceanbourne (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 11:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gorepriest (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sevag.derderian (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, there is better version OsamaK 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphan, flags must be SVG. there is SVG version OsamaK 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Xandergiles (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the identical image
so that it may be compatible with Template:Acopmap. Hence, this page becomes redundant.
Additionally, there are no pages that link to this (apart from my user page). Thus, Deleting it will not affect any other pages. Sniperz11talk|edits 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)