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, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ohio OLD11.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JasonB007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The Ohio Bobcats logo, as it consists of only letters is not Copyrightable as such this image is replaceable with a free picture taken at any of their games. Mtking ^(edits) 06:35, 27 November 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.

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, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple OLD8.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JasonB007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

As the Temple Owls logo only consists of the letter T it is not Copyrightable as such this image is replaceable with a free picture taken at any of their games. Mtking ^(edits) 06:40, 27 November 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.

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⚡ 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Delaware.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JasonB007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No need to use a copyright image when this one can be replaced with a picture taken at a game. Mtking ^(edits) 06:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a picture of Delaware. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 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.

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⚡ 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhode Island.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JasonB007 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No need to use a copyright image when this one can be replaced with a picture taken at a game. Mtking ^(edits) 06:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a picture of Rhode Island. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 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.

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 all, except for files marked otherwise. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the files in Category:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures are hereby nominated for deletion (sorted by uploader):

Note: No ffd-template is added on the files yet and uploaders are not yet informed.

(Added extra heading to make it easier to edit)

The background for this can be found here Category_talk:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures#All_PNGs_Moved. The main argument is that the files are unused and it is not realistic that the files will ever be used.

If you find a file or two you need just move it to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. I realize that the nomination is made in good faith, but this is entirely improper nonetheless. I looked at the background discussion linked just above, and I think I see some editors commenting that not all the files are obviously bad. It is entirely possible that there could be a few files that would serve a purpose and should be kept. And it is entirely unreasonable to expect editors responding here to go through all of these files looking for them. Sorry, but you need to nominate these in small batches, a few at a time, with a more specific justification for deleting each. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the files one by one will just spam ffd. Files are all unused and could easily be made in svg. If we move them to Commons someone has to categorize them, clean up after transfer and why should someone use these instead of a svg? The discussion of this has been going on since 10 June 2011 4 months and there has been done a lot of work to find and move the good files. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this new, and asking to FfD over 1,000 files at once seems like spamming the process in this form. At a minimum, please consider breaking them out by the editor who originally uploaded them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry that you think that this is spamming. My impression was that it was better to start one DR for 1.000 similar files than to start 1.000 DR's for one file each (or 335 DR's - one for each uploader). Personally I would prefer to comment in one big DR than to have to comment on 335 og 1.100 DR's.

"The experts" have been checking the files for 6 months and have moved hundreds or thousands of files to Commons leaving these 1.100 files and now we ask the uploaders to check their own files and invite everyone else to Comment. If the experts or the uploader does not want to keep then I see no reason to keep them. --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some. Some of them is mine and explicitly marked that for local testing both in-text and with the expicitly instructed {{KeepLocal}} tag. And per process, uploaders have not been notified. It's a good-faith nom for a generally discussed good idea, but poorly-executed in the specifics. This bulk nom needs to have its several fatal technical flaws resolved before I could consider supporting it. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that uploaders have not been informed yet... I requested a delivery for the messages so users should be informed soon. --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of cleaning up and do support in general the removal of virtually all of these files except for the ones that I specifically uploaded and tagged as my personal testing ones. I have marked them in the list. Unless anyone has a well-founded objection in the next day or two--why we must delete my sandbox--I'm going to WP:BOLDly strike them above and remove them (in some cases again!) from the categories that are used for public-use files. They are for testing, they are tagged as such, and have always been so. I don't know or care where or how in the process they wound up as lumped together with non-sandboxy stuff. DMacks (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ofcourse most welcome to strike the files you still need for your tests. I read your comment as an ok to delete the files that you have not marked as "dmacks sandbox". Hope I got that right. --MGA73 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Now that the in-use discovery process has been fixed and especially my sandbox toys left alone, I support deletion of the rest. As others note, in the time it takes to find one of these if there were a need, one at least as good could be drawn and uploaded. The generally low quality and not-currently-used status means they likely were used and have since been replaced by better ones. Commons is not an orphanage for the rejects of other projects, but rather a central server to support other projects. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. The discussion started back in June 2011. All uploaders were notified at that time. The useful images (incl. orphaned ones) have been transferred to Commons. I moved a few hundreds myself. What remains is not worth keeping. --Leyo 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC) There are enough other files (that cannot be moved to Commons) around that serve perfectly well as testing files, too.[reply]
• Delete all As already discussed and per Leyo: Those are really redundant, unused, the won't be used anymore and just for the sake of high quality I propose deletion. We have many eager drawer here and elsewhere just in case a new structure will be demanded. So no information is lost, but we can clean up things here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Leyo. We don't need tons of images lying around unused; that might not by itself be a reason to delet, but the fact that all possible files have been moved to Commons means that these aren't appropriate there. When copyright is no problem, an image that doesn't belong on Commons doesn't belong here either. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I previously went through the entire list and moved to Commons ~60 which I thought might be useful. I do not believe that these files currently serve any purpose. (I have struck out one file which I would like to keep because it is used in one of my talk page archives.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most until such time as they've been transferred to Commons. They do need to be categorized first, mind you, but that's no reason to get rid of them. DS (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have Commons:Commons:Project scope. It says "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.". Why should anyone want to use old files when new and better files excist? Commons is not a garbage dump. I think that is a good reason to "get rid of" the files. --MGA73 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The discovery process was bad. I'm looking at the one I uploaded, for instance, and it is used; it appears on Talk:vicine. Also, I was not notified until about the last ten minutes. It seems to me that these may need to be gone over one at a time. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the query again to see if more of the files is used... As for the information I know that users was not informed yesterday. But there is still at least six days to check files and this DR could be kept open for longer than the normal 7 days if more time is needed. --MGA73 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed half a year ago. --Leyo 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to Leyo's statement that everyone was notified back in June; I was not. If my image were genuinely not being used I wouldn't really care about its deletion, but as it is, I have to assume that the identification of these as unused is unreliable and that they need to be rechecked. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I move the file to Commons and solved the dispute. --Leyo 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. We have progressively moved all the in-use structures to commons, bar a few (118 at present) poor jpg and gif files (in Category:Classified Chemical Structures), I am re-drawing as svgs, when I'm in the mood. These ones for deletion are images that are not used in any articles. If we had a structure search engine on commons, then I would suggest keep, but we don't. Trying to locate a structure on commons is, at best, looking for a needle in a haystack - I certainly wouldn't bother trying. The time it takes to draw a single molecule in one of the (now) free molecule editors is minimal - 2-3 minutes max, add a few minutes to convert to svg, and then upload, and it's all still well under 10 minutes. Move to commons if you really want, but I've seen commons clear out orphaned files, and I suspect if these were moved then they would either never be used again &/or cleared out by commons anyway. Also, if moved, and someone redraws it, it will not be automatically tagged up as a duplicate, as it won't be exactly the same image.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Major update: As mentioned above someone found a file in use and as promised I checked the query and have found several other files that was in use. I excluded ALL the files that is in use no matter if the usage was in userpages, user galleries or even pages like User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-06-15. I did that to keep this DR as simple as possible. So ANY files in Category:Unclassified Chemical Structures that was in use an hour ago has been removed. Therefore this DR is only for files that is NOT used. Files in use in user galleries or anywhere else will be dealt with later in separate deletion requests. --MGA73 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete these ...

My files are in current use. I dont know how to put them in a category, sorry. But they are "organic compounds".

1. User:Smokefoot - File:Bda.png (delete | talk | history | logs)
2. User:Smokefoot - File:DiacetoneAlc.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

Several files by User:V8rik are up for deletion. He is on break now and is thus unable to respond, I fear.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for both: File:Bda.png is replace by the higher quality version File:Benzylideneacetone-2D-skeletal.png on Commons. File:DiacetoneAlc.png has even been moved to Commons as File:DiacetoneAlcohol.png. --Leyo 08:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep all nominating 1000 items in inappropriate for a FFD as users here will not be able to check them out, and some may be useful or used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You missed to consider the preceding long discussion (half a year). --Leyo 12:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't mean his comment is any less valid, since discussion is not centralized. The images which have been replaced by higher-quality images should be deleted, the rest should be properly categorized and then transferred to Commons unless they're of unsalvageably poor quality. DS (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  All (i) uploaders were informed on their talk page and (ii) the participants of the WikiProject Chemistry/Chemicals were notified via the project talk page. Hence, the most relevant community for judging chemical structures was involved. --Leyo 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  DS, unless someone goes around and changes the articles and replace the best images with low quality images then the best files ARE the ones that is used in the articles. If you have any reason to believe that that someone is doing that then please tell us so we can check the articles. --MGA73 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point of having an FfD process at all, if the rationale is going to be "trust us, we already evaluated this thoroughly"? It has already come out that some files thought to be not in use actually were in use. It has already come out that some uploaders who supposedly were notified of the earlier discussions have shown up here with objections. There is every reason to think that, even though the nominations have been entirely in good faith and several editors have spent time thinking about it, that FfD editors ought to be able to evaluate the nominations instead of taking them on faith, and it is impossible to do so when there are over 1,100 such files. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not in use in articles - hence they are technically "orphaned". Each one was individually evaluated and added to the category. Several users have a gallery page of their uploads, that does not constitute a reason to keep.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the best-quality image for each molecule. It may be useful for future articles or future revisions of current articles. Admittedly we don't need several different versions of the same molecule in png., svg., etc, but we should keep the best file for each structure, either in English Wiki or in Commons. Dirac66 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should keep the best picture of each molecule and the best picture is probably the one used in the articles. --MGA73 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is most probably the case for all structures. Several users including me moved orphaned images to Commons, if they were of high quality. Hence, they are not part of this deletion request. --Leyo 17:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can explain an easy way to find a molecule you want on commons, then keep would be an option - but there is not. Molecules are not like photographs - you don't need someone to go to X with a camera. It's all done very quick in the comfort of your own home. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nominating 1000+ images all at once was probably a poor choice.--Rockfang (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Would you rather have 100 separate deletion requests each with 10 each? Thus taking six months to sort out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could have potentially been easier to notify uploaders, which also wasn't handled ideally in my opinion, and evaluate each image if they were submitted in chunks smaller than 1000. If evaluating the images for deletion takes longer than 7 days, what is the big rush? They do not appear to be copyvios.--Rockfang (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Rockfang. Uploaders have been informed. I do not think that it is a problem that it took 1 day before the message was delivered to the uploaders - why should that be a problem? Also there is no rule saying that a deletion request must be closed after 7 days. It can stay open for longer if needed. But unless you or anyone else is actually checking the files I see no reason to keep the DR open much longer than the normal 7 days. So if you are checking all the files how long time do you need? --MGA73 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Provide more time to go through the files before deletion. I only learned about this massive pending deletion today, and I was only informed (notified) two days ago. I'm sure there are a number of Users who uploaded these files throughout the years who are in a similar position and cannot deal with everything immediately. H Padleckas (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long time do you need to check the files? --MGA73 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion of the file I uploaded as an SVG version has been prepared and it is that that is now used on the article for which I uploaded the image in question. If someone else is using it elsewhere (as I suspect since it has been struck through on the list) I suggest their use be changed to the SVG as well. More generally, if an alternative SVG version with the same content and higher quality exists, deletion of the older and unused version sounds like good housekeeping. EdChem (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EdCHem for your comments. As per your summary, I have unstruck that file.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few users asked for more time but so far they have not said how long time they need. Is it 3 days or 3 years? I think we only need to keep the DR open if someone is actually checking the files. So far I have striked out all files where someone has said that there may be a reson to keep the file (used in a talk page or user gallery etc.). The idea is that those are either moved to Commons or discussed in another (and smaller) deletion request. Therefore it is not 1.100 files that users need to check but "only" 855. I think it should be possible to check the files in 1-2 weeks so keeping this DR open for a few days would be fine but I see no need to keep it open for weeks or months. --MGA73 (talk) 13:02, 4 December 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.

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⚡ 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amitabh bachchan at afa.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bineetojha ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image of living person. The fact that he was awarded the 4th Asian Film Awards can easily be explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #3. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No non-free photo is needed for reader understanding of the fact that he was at the 4th Asian Film Awards (or whatever the use of the photo is intended to show). —teb728 t c 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Replaced. A freely licensed image has been placed in the same place, preserving the encyclopaedic information and the image is coherent with the article's topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• a false licence has been added to the replacement image by this uploader/editor and that too will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 06:14, 28 November 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.

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⚡ 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Up Until Now.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sirbrentley ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Permissions problems. This has a clear claim by the uploader to be the image's copyright holder, but since it's the cover to a published album, we need proof (which we don't have) that the uploader is the real copyright holder. The uploader's username is shared with the singer, and the uploader's primary editing interests are about the same singer, so it's quite possible that the uploader is the singer and the copyright holder — that's why I've not speedy deleted this as a copyvio. Were proof of the uploader's identity provided, I would happily change my position on this image. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on, wait until the AFD on that article is finish. In the case (unlikely) the article will be kept, we can transform the image to a fair use image and then all is OK. If the article gets deleted, then my 'vot' will be delete since this would be an out of scope image! mabdul 11:55, 28 November 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.