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.
Keep The identification is that it's a rock with copper oxide on it. That's in the categories, feel free to add more reasonable deductions about the copper oxide photograph in the description. Sorry, as the uploader, I'm having difficulty understanding why a sysop with an account active since 2006 would want to nominate this file. Is there a story here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mineral cannot be unequivocally identified using a picture without further explanation. It's a simple fact, and anyone who has a clue about mineralogy knows it. The annotated section is not copper (this claim is embarrassing, because this is not what copper looks like!), but rather a small twig from a conifer. As far as you can see, the mineral sample lies on a residue of snow and there are other small twigs around the sample. Whether the blue-green crust is really aurichalcite is also only guesswork and accordingly doubtful. There are many copper compounds that are blue-green in color. This image is actually just one of many unidentifiable images that are blindly uploaded en masse from flickr and other image databases to commons, just because they are under a free license. But it is useless garbage data and apparently nobody has the courage to say it and delete it from time to time. -- Ra'ikeTC20:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch: Nur anhand eines Bildes ohne weitere Erklärungen lässt sich ein Mineral nicht zweifelsfrei identifizieren. Das ist eine Tatsache und jeder, der von Mineralogie einen Hauch von Ahnung hat, weiß das. Bei dem annotierten Ausschnitt handelt es sich auch nicht um Kupfer (diese Behauptung ist schon peinlich, denn so sieht Kupfer nicht aus!), sondern eher um ein kleines Ästchen von einem Nadelbaum. Soweit man es nämlich erkennen kann, liegt die Mineralprobe auf einem Rest von Schnee und um die Probe herum liegen weitere Ästchen. Ob es sich bei der blaugrünen Kruste wirklich um Aurichalcit handelt, ist ebenfalls nur geraten und entsprechend zweifelhaft. Es gibt viele Kupferverbindungen, die eine blaugrüne Farbe haben. Dieses Bild ist tatsächlich nur eines von vielen nicht identifizierbaren Bildern, die blindlings massenhaft von flickr und anderen Bild-Datenbanken nach commons geladen werden, nur weil sie unter einer freien Lizenz stehen. Es ist aber nutzloser Datenmüll und scheinbar hat niemand den Mut, das zu sagen und auch mal zu löschen.
Your claim is that "photographs of minerals must be deleted unless they can be comprehensively identified". There is no policy reason for this. "Unidentified mineral that's probably a copper compound that we found in Arizona" is still a valid image. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have the Commons rule Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. That means for example: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, are not realistically useful. We hold many high-quality images of identified native copper, aurichalcite and other copper minerals. From this mineral on the picture we only know, that it is any of about 926! minerals out of arizona and it's maybe blue-green (picture or camera quality?). It also could be shattuckite or chrysocolla (or any other of about 175 minerals, which is blue, blue-green,... and could be found in arizona). There is no chance to identify this mineral without exact location of the find, chemical compound or crystal form and so there is no realistic educational use for that small, poorly composed snapshot of an unidentified and unidentifiable mineral. Why should one compulsively hold onto this useless image? -- Ra'ikeTC12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC) P.S.: Believe me, I LOVE minerals and the more good mineral pictures we have, the better. I also don't like deleting mineral pictures and I do what I can to identify enigmatic minerals, but it just can't be done with this one.[reply]
Keep Does Commons have another good photo of a mineral on snow with some conifer twigs around and on it? I guess no, so I vote to keep this one. Besides, this image has been used on the web and is useful in general. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4nn1l2 - It's used on the web so that's enough for me. I understand the nominators sentiments and generally agree it's not worth keeping something that cannot be identified however in this specific case someone in the world has found a use for this image so rightly or wrongly for me usage trumps identifiability Had it not been used it would've been a straight delete. –Davey2010Talk22:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While its lack of 100% confident identification hinders its educational use in articles about individual minerals, it has value as a decent quality image of a generic rock. In the same fashion, it can be useful to have "stock photo" images of anonymous, unidentified, non-notable people doing something interesting (operating equipment, doing a dance, demonstrating fashion), and well-composed images of unidentified insects can be kept to illustrate "a generic insect" even if unidentifiable to species because the diagnostic genitalia or DNA sequence cannot be ascertained. Sometimes a picture of a rock is just a picture of a rock, and that's all that it needs to be. --Animalparty (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing resembling a policy-based reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Delete A mineral cannot be unequivocally identified using a picture without further explanation. It's a simple fact, and anyone who has a clue about mineralogy knows it. The annotated section is not copper (this claim is embarrassing, because this is not what copper looks like!), but rather a small twig from a conifer. As far as you can see, the mineral sample lies on a residue of snow and there are other small twigs around the sample. Whether the blue-green crust is really aurichalcite is also only guesswork and accordingly doubtful. There are many copper compounds that are blue-green in color. This image is actually just one of many unidentifiable images that are blindly uploaded en masse from flickr and other image databases to commons, just because they are under a free license. But it is useless garbage data and apparently nobody has the courage to say it and delete it from time to time. -- Ra'ike T C 20:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Deutsch: Nur anhand eines Bildes ohne weitere Erklärungen lässt sich ein Mineral nicht zweifelsfrei identifizieren. Das ist eine Tatsache und jeder, der von Mineralogie einen Hauch von Ahnung hat, weiß das. Bei dem annotierten Ausschnitt handelt es sich auch nicht um Kupfer (diese Behauptung ist schon peinlich, denn so sieht Kupfer nicht aus!), sondern eher um ein kleines Ästchen von einem Nadelbaum. Soweit man es nämlich erkennen kann, liegt die Mineralprobe auf einem Rest von Schnee und um die Probe herum liegen weitere Ästchen. Ob es sich bei der blaugrünen Kruste wirklich um Aurichalcit handelt, ist ebenfalls nur geraten und entsprechend zweifelhaft. Es gibt viele Kupferverbindungen, die eine blaugrüne Farbe haben. Dieses Bild ist tatsächlich nur eines von vielen nicht identifizierbaren Bildern, die blindlings massenhaft von flickr und anderen Bild-Datenbanken nach commons geladen werden, nur weil sie unter einer freien Lizenz stehen. Es ist aber nutzloser Datenmüll und scheinbar hat niemand den Mut, das zu sagen und auch mal zu löschen.
Comment DR relisted after it was archived after a premature closure by a non-admin. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
![21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9jL21TL25NyCvBLgr0Mq9Sp3dBKprBK3vNb0nXLgs6aDmQyu0NzDsTaNw5p09Snr9RnB90MgrHwpdXIA9Sor8BaDdjdte3KOsOaB8Yzji4yts3aDK5zkCSMZlZe2aTsAiZMqTBbteQaDiTajGTaDrsaDi6aDm6ajmSajmQqE1gMqPByDeQajCTaNo1bta0yr9xLArHL2nHJgFBp0hOMpXRLAhHdZh1L3w7wOJNdZh1L3w7pOG0atG5ztKOzNC0cu5WKgK%3D##c-Ra'ike-2021-08-25T21:20:00.000Z-File:2009-365-349_One_of_the_Arizona_"C's"_(4189572794).jpg){kind=link}
![22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9jL21TL25NyCvBLgr0Mq9Sp3dBKprBK3vNb0nXLgs6aDmQyu0NzDsTaNw5p09Snr9RnB90MgrHwpdXIA9Sor8BaDdjdte3KOsOaB8Yzji4yts3aDK5zkCSMZlZe2aTvqPUIpJFbteQaDeTajaTajBsaDe6aDe6ajmSajmQqE1gMqPByDeQajCTaNo1bta0yr9xLArHL2nHJgFBp0hOMpXRLAhHdZh1L3w7wOJNdZh1L3w7pOG0atG5ztKOzNC0cu5WKgK%3D##c-Ellywa-2022-03-09T22:22:00.000Z-File:2009-365-349_One_of_the_Arizona_"C's"_(4189572794).jpg){kind=link}