Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bixafen.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
obsolete by File:Bixafen structure.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep The two representations aren't equivalent. One is fully skeletal, the other is not. Wikipedias in different languages have preferences for different styles, so it is good to keep both types. Ed (Edgar181) 15:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: As above Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
obsoleted by File:Bixafen.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per DR 2014 by the same nominator, rather different older presentation in use for five years. Hiding it makes no sense, and could be bad for still existing uses elsewhere, see related DRs. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a fully skeletal SVG and a SVG with explicit methyl groups. What do you need additionally?--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need it at all. But it was for years the Wikipedia image (only de on one page in this case, but still.) I've no idea who uses this version (outside of Wikimedia, where nobody uses it anymore.) These re-users (some found by Google for a similar case, here I was too lazy to check it again, because the absence of evidence is anyway no evidence of absence) trust that commons does not hide the important license etc. for their attribution links or similar references. A better alternative isn't relevant for old uses, before the SVG existed. No new user will be tempted to pick the PNG. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete COM:D does not bless inertia as a reason to keep. Instead, it explicitly note that "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" fall below the "realistically useful for an educational purpose" threshold and therefore fails to be within Commons:Project scope. Newer, higher-quality images displace (and seem to lead to deletion of) older ones all the time. The nom'ed image is jaggy and not very large, whereas the proposed replacement solves those quality problems--this is not an argument based on file format, but on the quality of the superceded image itself. Various of the current standards fort chemical drawing do bless high quality PNG in addition to SVG. This image is not just released by the creator as PD, but is intrinsically PD by its very nature, so there is no legal basis for needing to trace the license back from an external reuser to verify that the reuser isn't lying about it being freely released. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't need it at all. But it was for years the Wikipedia image (only de on one page in this case, but still.) I've no idea who uses this version (outside of Wikimedia, where nobody uses it anymore.) These re-users (some found by Google for a similar case, here I was too lazy to check it again, because the absence of evidence is anyway no evidence of absence) trust that commons does not hide the important license etc. for their attribution links or similar references. A better alternative isn't relevant for old uses, before the SVG existed. No new user will be tempted to pick the PNG. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a fully skeletal SVG and a SVG with explicit methyl groups. What do you need additionally?--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per DMacks. --Leyo 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
