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 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 debate was: - Delete - Peripitus(Talk) 11:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this non-free product logo significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the Wordlock article. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Consensus indicates that a logo used on the article of its subject passes NFCC8. ViperSnake151 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reference? I'm not aware of there being consensus for such a hard and fast rule, at least not concerning product logos and without qualifying words such as "usually". Certainly no such rule is mentioned in WP:NFCC itself, nor in WP:NFC#Acceptable use or WP:LOGO. The closest the latter gets is to say that "It is generally accepted that company logos may appear in the infobox of articles on commercial companies" (emphasis mine). The logo in question may also be the logo of the eponymous company, but the company is not the subject of the article; indeed, there seems no indication that this company is in any way notable except for this one product. Note that the article already features a free picture of the product itself; I see no indication that this logo would provide the reader with any additional value beyond that.
Also note that, though I didn't mention it in my original nomination, this image has another problem: it's a non-free image uploaded by its copyright holder. Thus, it would appear to violate WP:IUP#User-created images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2008 (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 debate was: - Keep - Peripitus(Talk) 11:31, 9 November 2008 (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.
Eye-candy image that is not accompanied by critical commentary - Article already has free images of the firms work. Image is adequately replaceable and not significant to reader's understanding . Peripitus(Talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-candy image that is not accompanied by critical commentary - Article already has free images of the firms work. Image is adequately replaceable and not significant to reader's understanding . Peripitus(Talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-candy image that is not accompanied by critical commentary - Article already has free images of the firms work. Image is adequately replaceable and not significant to reader's understanding . Peripitus(Talk) 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eye-candy image that is not accompanied by critical commentary - Article already has free images of the firms work. Image is adequately replaceable and not significant to reader's understanding . Peripitus(Talk) 10:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is probably not the copyright owner. Also, image is related to the deleted articles Antoine Cassese, Inventor and Antoine Cassese. Not sure if it has some encyclopedic use outside promotion of the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm actually not so sure the uploader might not actually be the copyright holder, but we have no evidence of that in any case, and the image serves no purpose. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The copyright status is definitely up for discussion: the picture come from a site that is probably the uploader's, but it may well be the product of the awarding organization. Either way it serves no purpose other than promotion, and its existence makes the recreation of Antoine Cassese, Inventor (deleted several times) easier. Maethordaer (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just blocked the uploader for Not Getting It (i.e. recreating the article multiple times even after warnings); this is part of an attempt at promotion, more than anything, and serves no purpose whatsoever to the encyclopedia. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused image of a graph showing, based on the image name, "Nells Law" of refractions. Not much information other than "made with Graphcalc" is given. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Snell's law. Still, count me as neutral — it's not currently used and doesn't really seem that illustrative. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to weak delete. Not really that illustrative. On the subject, the Snell's law article has some great images. What a lovely little article. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
