This image is highly problematic from an original research perspective. In particular, the association of energy with volume is essentially an unwarranted synthesis and tends to confuse the physics of the situation. The person who made the image in the first place admitted that the image is meant to serve as "advocacy" (read "propaganda") and indeed using volumes of cubes to indicate the "sizes" of energy available is something that should be subject to attribution and publication rather than creation by a Wikipedia editor. The image has also been creating problems at certain articles like solar energy where consensus was as of last year to not include the image, but it keeps getting reintroduced in defiance of this. The best thing to do in this case is delete it from Wikipedia as not applicable to any of our articles. Keeping it on commons makes sense since it was released under the proper copyright, but it should not be used in a verifiablysourced, unoriginalencyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OP has not raised any valid issues with the image. Most types of charts and graphs interpret data of any sort as area or volume, so this is far from unusual. Nobody is saying that you can put an amount of energy in a given volume, it's simply a visual representation which allows the casual reader a quick understanding of proportions involved. Second, what someone said while creating something, and what that something is and how it's used are two very different things. Please comment on the content rather than the editor. Finally, the problems of Solar energy are the problems of that article. If someone is pushing against consensus, there are several well established methods of dealing with them on Wikipedia. We don't delete stuff just because somebody thinks it's pretty in the article but you don't. NJGW (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there may be a problem of synthasis in the data itself, they appear to combine data from two sources, making it harder to combine like with like. I don't see a problem with the representation of energy as volume. It does seem established practice to use volumes and area to depict scaler properties (The Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project's Exergy Flow Charts uses areas to represent energy.) Hence the image is an vaild interpration of the data rather than a synthasis. It would be interesting to see data which showed the energy it would be technically possible to exctract from each source. --Salix (talk): 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inasmuch as the image is on Commons, this IfD is misplaced. —teb728tc 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
extremely low quality (he's just a smudge!), now replaced by image:Joshua Gomez.jpg which is at least slightly better Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion with the uploader, the result of which is here the image can be deleted as not needed. Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is extremely implausible that Raizen18 took this photo, as claimed. (S/he should receive a stern warning about the consequences of false copyright declarations.) S/he recently asked both on Talk:Ryan Reynolds and WP:MCQ about how to obtain images of Ryan Reynolds because s/he did not have any. Somehow I doubt that s/he somehow stumbled upon this web-resolution 2005 photo with no EXIF data in his/her records within the last few days... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative work of photographed artwork. No source given for individual works pictured. Also, this image is hotlinked from [1] and we should not be providing non-free content to third parties. -Nard 21:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
