Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clotrimazole structure.svg
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.
Mixture of fonts...have File:Clotrimazole.svg as self-consistent alternative DMacks (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid deletion reason, file clearly serves an educational purpose. odder (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is the educational purpose that is not served at least as well by that alt file? This file here has three different text styles, sometimes even trying to represent the same fact (the two N are different fonts), and is a mix of paths and text-elements for the text chars themselves. Altogether, the result is lower visual quality and more difficult editing for reuse: "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" is explicitly not within COM:EDUSE. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- We don't delete images simply because there is an alternative available. That alternative may, for example, disappear for some reason. I do agree there are a number of oddities (no pun intended) with this drawing. The fonts don't bother me much, but the different sized phenyl groups do, and the awkward angle of the chloride :). But, it is definitely distinct - so fine to keep. Another (more persuasive?) reason to keep it, is that the historical article versions become unreadable without it. It may be worthwhile to explicitely mention the alternative as a probably superior version on the file description page, that seems more appropriate than deletion. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- With respect to the Cl angle (which I didn't notice), it is factually wrong here for no reason, not just awkward-looking, and is correct in the alt I mentioned. That's an additional and distinct reason for deleting this image.
- We seem to quite often delete images that are poorer once a better alternative becomes available, especially for simple chemical diagrams, as long as there is no need for an attribution-chain of a derivative work (which there isn't...{{PD-chem}}). I can't find anything in Commons:Project_scope#Discussion and the rest of that policy regarding former uses on WMF site as a reason to retain poorer images...only repeated mention of (seemingly current) "in use". Scanning a few days-worth of closed DRs, I see some closed as "delete" for quality reasons but none kept when that was the only concern. In what policy or guideline can I find this alternate idea? I have no objection to leaving a redirect to the improved other image, as that would avoid breaking old versions of de:Clotrimazol. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- We don't delete images simply because there is an alternative available. That alternative may, for example, disappear for some reason. I do agree there are a number of oddities (no pun intended) with this drawing. The fonts don't bother me much, but the different sized phenyl groups do, and the awkward angle of the chloride :). But, it is definitely distinct - so fine to keep. Another (more persuasive?) reason to keep it, is that the historical article versions become unreadable without it. It may be worthwhile to explicitely mention the alternative as a probably superior version on the file description page, that seems more appropriate than deletion. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- What is the educational purpose that is not served at least as well by that alt file? This file here has three different text styles, sometimes even trying to represent the same fact (the two N are different fonts), and is a mix of paths and text-elements for the text chars themselves. Altogether, the result is lower visual quality and more difficult editing for reuse: "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" is explicitly not within COM:EDUSE. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion, no possible use. --Leyo 15:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
