Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Image:Intestine_colin_snurb.jpg

Image:Intestine_colin_snurb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hyako (notify | contribs).

Single-purpose account uploaded the image. The user claims the image is self-made, although I am very doubtful. The image is unencyclopedic, and has been orphaned from the article Vampire squid where it clearly did not belong. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic and....WTF? :P Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free image is no longer used in any articles, as it has been obsoleted by Image:Manchester High School West Logo.svg.Super Rad ! 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DrSundarS.jpg

Image:DrSundarS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diodynus (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Core desat 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Facecacheefront.jpg

Image:Facecacheefront.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JorgeS (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book hidden face of credit, fails WP:COI Core desat 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Facecacheeback.jpg

Image:Facecacheeback.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JorgeS (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book hidden face of credit, fails WP:COI Core desat 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pgh17.jpg

Image:Pgh17.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Conk 9 (notify | contribs).

Image is a copyright violation; blatantly copied from gocarlo.com. The original author's watermark is still in the image itself as well! Conk 9 tagged it as public domain, but it is clearly not so; it's a professional image. The uploaded was also recently banned from editing for a series of other image copyright violations, based on information on his/her talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map-WA-605.png

Image:Map-WA-605.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ComputerGuy890100 (notify | contribs).

low quality, speculation, MSPaint image Rschen7754 (T C) 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map is not so good for me. You may delete it. - — ComputerGuy890100 • Talk • 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N3109167 31051231 865.jpg

Image:N3109167 31051231 865.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by QdoggE14 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, uploaded for vandalism by a mostly vandalism account B (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-Listed for speedy Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This almost looks like the word "ass", which Tom Cruise (male ass, FYI) is purportedly obsessed with. What could be wrong with this image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.215.77 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg

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 discussion was:

Result: keep, Dreadstar † 07:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bravehartbear (notify | contribs).

Logo is not needed to illustrate the organization when other relevant free-use images could be used instead - such as existing free-use images of Church of Scientology buildings. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Logo is not used to illustrate the organization. The Scientology symbol represents the Scientology belief on the KRC and ARC triangles. Being this a main Scientology belief and a important part of the article, it is needed to illustrate the relationship betwen the Scientology beliefs and it's symbols. The logo is being used in fair use. Bravehartbear (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply see no need for these copyrighted images to be used in this project. With other logos of for-profit companies where no other free-use images exist, perhaps. But with an organization such as this one with a litigious history related to what it perceives to be copyright infringement, why should Wikipedia tempt fair use? Perhaps if this user wishes to he can try to get the Church of Scientology to release a logo sample image and upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a free-use license? Cirt (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to treat Scientology diferent than any other group to do so would be bias. Bravehartbear (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fair-use rationale for this image is the same as that used for other copyrighted imges, cf. Image:Exxon_logo.svg. If that rationale is not sufficient for this image then it is not sufficient for any image. Cirt's dig against the CofS is not worthy of discussion. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many readers won't be familiar with Scientology buildings, however would recognize the organization's logo. Addhoc (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed with Addhoc and JustaHulk --Raymondgangel (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A logo like any other, representing the organisation (correction: or as it seems, its beliefs) as an entity.~~MaxGrin (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a key identifying symbol of a belief symbol it has an important place in an encyclopedia. WierdJohn (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed, as per logo fair use rationale and Addhoc's argument. - A.J. (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Key symbol in identifying subject. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg (below) should be used under a claim of Fair Use for the Wikipedia article discussing this organization. That one is the organization's most prominent and publicly-known logo, as shown on their official website homepage here. All others should be deleted, because use of multiple non-free images does not comply with NFCC. JGHowes ^talk - 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- important and fair use. Maikel (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is appropriate use of a logo. Doczilla (talk) 08:11, 8 February 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.

Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg

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 discussion was: Result was keep. Dreadstar † 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bravehartbear (notify | contribs).

Logo is not needed to illustrate the organization when other relevant free-use images could be used instead - such as existing free-use images of Church of Scientology buildings. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Logo is not used to illustrate the organization. The Scientology cross represents the Scientology belief of the eight dynamics of life. Being this a main Scientology belief it is needed to illustrate the relationship betwen the Scientology beliefs and it's symbols. The logo is being used in fair use for educational purposes. Bravehartbear (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply see no need for these copyrighted images to be used in this project. With other logos of for-profit companies where no other free-use images exist, perhaps. But with an organization such as this one with a litigious history related to what it perceives to be copyright infringement, why should Wikipedia tempt fair use? Perhaps if this user wishes to he can try to get the Church of Scientology to release a logo sample image and upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a free-use license? Cirt (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to treat Scientology diferent than any other group to do so would be bias. Bravehartbear (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fair-use rationale for this image is the same as that used for other copyrighted imges, cf. Image:Exxon_logo.svg. If that rationale is not sufficient for this image then it is not sufficient for any image. Cirt's dig against the CofS is not worthy of discussion. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Protected under fair-use. If you are going to start removing images such as this one then expect to remove every other fair-use image from the site. --Raymondgangel (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a key identifying symbol of a belief symbol it has an important place in an encyclopedia. WierdJohn (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the use of an organization's logo for identification purposes is uniformly the practice in Wikipedia articles, per WP:LOGOS, and is equally applicable to for-profit corporations, non-profit organizations, and church denominations. This use meets NFCC. JGHowes ^talk - 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(additional comment): It is also the organization's most prominent and publicly-known logo, as shown on their official website homepage here JGHowes ^talk - 10:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It opens up new ideas to the overall belief system. 20:21 February 5 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.228.206 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - (as posted in the cross logo's talk page) Who cares if the logo is associated with a "hate group"? The cross logo is still important and permits the reader to recognize the Church's symbology. While I in no way agree with the church itself, removing properly-used graphics only serves to further their own objectives. The logo -- as well as the other logos posted -- should stay. What would an article on Nazis be without the swastika? 69.224.75.58 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- important and fair use. Maikel (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is appropriate and fair use of a logo image. Doczilla (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use rationale applies to this image as well as any other corporate logo. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important, interesting image. Proper fair use image. Dreadstar † 07:13, 11 February 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg

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 discussion was: Result was delete. Dreadstar † 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scientology Symbol 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bravehartbear (notify | contribs).

Logo is not needed to illustrate the organization when other relevant free-use images could be used instead - such as existing free-use images of Church of Scientology buildings. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Tagged instead with {{di-orphaned fair use}} - the image was inappropriately tagged as "public domain", in violation of WP:IUP, and in addition to that, it is not being used anywhere in article mainspace on this project. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a good image. Thanks BHB. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The second image is good, but the relevance is not explained. I would change my vote to a keep if someone can offer a good reason why both symbols are going to be utilized under fair use instead of just the cross with the additional four points.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a key identifying symbol of a belief symbol it has an important place in an encyclopedia. WierdJohn (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that key identifying symbols belong here, and usually at the top righthand portion of the article, but it's not the S with the triangles that belongs there, it's the cross with the star in it. There are multitudinous symbols associated with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but up at the top of their respective articles, each of them just has the one that is the most well known. I would say stick with the starred cross, put it close to the top of the article, and if the second symbol is going to be on this page, then the article needs to explain its relevance, which it does not. I know that it is the symbol for new-era Scientology, but I know that because of information not contained in the article. Too many symbols on one page is confusing and downplays the importance of the starred cross, anyways. There is an article that catalogs and explains each symbol of Scientology, that is were all the symbols other than the most important symbol belong. Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg, which appears to be the most official rendering. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the symbol logo and cross logo are used, then in addition including this image doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding. Addhoc (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only Image:Scientology Cross Logo.jpg (above) should be used under a claim of Fair Use for the Wikipedia article discussing this organization. That one is the organization's most prominent and publicly-known logo, as shown on their official website homepage here. All others should be deleted, because use of multiple non-free images does not comply with NFCC. JGHowes ^talk - 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- important and fair use. And storage space isn't the issue here. Maikel (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use is redundant, which makes it harder to justify fair use. Doczilla (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it could be better explained via a good description, it is relevant to the topic. I see no valid reason to remove it. Izuko (talk) 15:45, 9 February 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.

Image:Reserch based design.jpg

Image:Reserch based design.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aboditec (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, absentee uploader. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:COURTYARD HOUSE.jpg

Image:COURTYARD HOUSE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aboditec (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, absentee uploader. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katrina_kaif_2.jpg

Image:Katrina_kaif_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rumzy_g (notify | contribs).

Doesn't appear to be self made; probably fair use and orphaned, so delete. Addhoc (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Store foodlion.jpg

Image:Store foodlion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MortalConviction (notify | contribs).

Image is orphaned and in violation of Wikipedia's Non-free content policy MortalConviction (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New Picture.GIF

Image:New Picture.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MortalConviction (notify | contribs).

Image is orphaned and in violation of Wikipedia's Non-free content policy MortalConviction (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Larry Mullins 2007.jpg

Image:Larry Mullins 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Larry Mullins (notify | contribs).

OR, the article of the subject of the photo was deleted for lack of notability. BlueAzure (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lassiter.jpg

Image:Lassiter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lassmt (notify | contribs).

OR, UE - Apparently a photo of someones son, I don't see how it could be used in any article. BlueAzure (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LEGACYposter.jpg

Image:LEGACYposter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blukem (notify | contribs).

OR, poster for a movie who's article was deleted for lack of notability. BlueAzure (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UNFORGIVENposter.jpg

Image:UNFORGIVENposter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blukem (notify | contribs).

OR, poster for a movie who's article was deleted for lack of notability. BlueAzure (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:REDEMPTIONposter.jpg

Image:REDEMPTIONposter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blukem (notify | contribs).

OR, poster for a movie who's article was deleted for lack of notability. BlueAzure (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CLOWN.jpg

Image:CLOWN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blukem (notify | contribs).

OR, screenshot of a movie who's article was deleted for lack of notability. BlueAzure (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peter brown.jpg

Image:Peter brown.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Heath boddie001 (notify | contribs).

This image appears to be a work of the City of Houston, not the United States Federal Government, as asserted by the image license tag -- see [1], the page from which the image was downloaded. Media created by local governments are not automatically released into the public domain. John254 20:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:03020003b.jpg

Image:03020003b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drunkmail (notify | contribs).

UE, OR Retropunk (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iraq IED.jpg

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 discussion was: Result was keep. Dreadstar † 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iraq IED.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheFEARgod (notify | contribs).

The PD-ineligible reason ("terrorist org. in Iraq doesn't have copyright" etc.) is bogus. Under Berne, everyone gets automatic copyright. The image isn't necessary in the article it's being used (Financial cost of the Iraq War). --Superm401 - Talk 21:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please explain better, does the video of al-Qaeda have a copyright???--TheFEARgod (Ч) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Iraq is not a party to the Berne Convention and there are no statutory laws on copyright and related rights in force in Iraq. The PD-ineligible tag should be replaced with something better, however, the image has no source to verify that the image is what it says it is, so I am tagging with a "No source" tag. -Nv8200p talk 02:00, 8 February 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.

Image:A350.jpg

Image:A350.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Photoshop job. -- RG ² 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Photoshop! Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Qantas_747.JPG

Image:Qantas_747.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. (Also, possible copyright violation, as user has a long history of mistagging images.) -- RG ² 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Westranchpic.gif

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 discussion was: Result was keep. Dreadstar † 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Westranchpic.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. Source gives no evidence that logo has been released under a CC license. -- RG² 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to logo tag. -Nv8200p talk 01:48, 8 February 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Australia_trip_006.jpg

Image:Australia_trip_006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low quality. (User also has long history of uploading copyright violations.) -- RG ² 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australia_trip_018.jpg

Image:Australia_trip_018.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low quality. (User also has long history of uploading copyright violations.) -- RG ² 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australia_trip_002.jpg

Image:Australia_trip_002.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sparrowman980 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, low quality. (User also has long history of uploading copyright violations.) -- RG ² 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MikeSuperhero.JPG

Image:MikeSuperhero.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gildenlow (notify | contribs).

Not used, not ensyclopedic. --Sherool (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clubcrests.PNG

Image:Clubcrests.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Danny Invincible (notify | contribs).

Not used, also clarly not "PD-self" seeing as it's a collection of various team logos and such. --Sherool (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]