Orphaned, Looks like a headshot scanned from a magazine or book so the uploader may not be the copyright holder. Nv8200ptalk 00:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I confirm the deletion of this file. It is quite 'unencyclopedic', indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalco (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Professional looking headshot that the uploader does probably not hold the copyright to as claimed. Nv8200ptalk 01:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was orphaned from [{Asif Ahmad Ali|this page]], and appears to be a photograph of a former foreign minister of Pakistan. While I have my doubts about the licence, the encyclopaedicness of the image is beyond reproach. WilyD 13:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and irrelevant within the context of the article. Section on group is among the author's only contributions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rational is not applicable anymore, as the band was active and this proves that there may be free images from this period (concerts) available as well as that they may become active again. Poeloq (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to April 24 for more comment. -Nv8200ptalk 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
-- closing this as keep, without prejudice to further discussions of the issue elsewhere, or if new evidence or arguments can be made either way. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
image contaings meatball logo which tag states is copyrighted, fair use may apply MECU≈talk 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NASA can't copyright, since they are the government.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag is incorrect anyway the material isn't copyright. There's a new version of the tag in wikimedia which is correct- but template is locked- I have put in a request to transfer the template across. New template makes no claim of copyright (I checked the regs- NASA *originated* material is always public domain- by law.)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep. That "meatball" is put there by NASA to prove that the image is theirs, is PD, and can/should be freely used. The only restriction on the meatball is that people other than NASA can't fraudulently apply it to non-NASA images. There is no, repeat no, restriction against using the NASA images. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've just decribed an ND license which wikipedia veiws as non free and deletes on site.Genisock2 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe he just described what we ourselves do: identify the source of images, often with a logo in the tag for ease of identification. 206.81.66.172 (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, since you can't legally use the NASA logo in a tag, that may be precisely the wrong thing to do; and pointless anyway- the images are already public domain.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep for this and the other meatball images - This line of argument about the license is novel here and inconsistent with longstanding NASA policy on image freedom. The argument made is prima facie ludicrous. Keep them all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No copyright issue. Both image and logo are explicitly public domain. The existence of trademark-like laws in the US about certain government insignia does not affect their copyright status. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Neither the image nor the logo is copyrighted. The logo is protected by specific non-copyright legislation similar to trademark law, but that doesn't concern us. --Carnildo (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the laws that regulate these logos prevent it from being inappropriately placed on a NON-NASA document to make it appear to be from NASA. When it appears on an accurate reproduction of the original, there is no problem. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The logo isn't copyrighted. This would be like saying we shouldn't have images of US money since counterfeiting bills is illegal. --Sopoforic (talk) 22:59, 2 April 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
-- closing this as keep, without prejudice to further discussions of the issue elsewhere, or if new evidence or arguments can be made either way. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NASA image that contains meetball logo, could be cropped off to retain the image MECU≈talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason to delete an image that is in use in articles.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Us violating NASA's copyright is not a valid reason for deletion? Further, your comment on my talk page is not WP:CIVIL. MECU≈talk 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have copyright on it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From: NASA_logo. Like most NASA images, the "meatball" insignia, the "worm" logo and the NASA seal are in the public domain. However, their usage is restricted under Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 1221.[4] These NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters.[5] Guess where we got it from? Go on, you'll never guess.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they have copyright on it. It may just be under other license rules because they are the federal government. The {{PD-USGov-NASA}} tag states the meatball logo shall not be used, and we even use Image:NASA logo.svg under fair use. The reference for the article stating it's in the public domain isn't available (to me) so I couldn't verify that, but it contradicts everything else here at Wikipedia. The NASA guidelines are specifically clear and talk too much about stuff that doesn't apply to use (agency use). Perhaps contacting the NASA official listed as the contact to clarify the matter would be best, and then recording that fact with OTRS (either wait, free or not) to have a definitive resolution. Oh, and citing Wikipedia isn't a good thing. We can't self-reference. MECU≈talk 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have completely and utterly misunderstood the nature of the NASA insignia. It is intended to identify materials, activities and projects that were produced by NASA, not to preclude copying (except insofar that the insignia can't be misappropriated to indicate something was done by NASA when it wasn't- there is a special law covering that, but it only applies to when the insignia is first applied to materials.) Since this material was produced by NASA, and since we have clear license for using it, the wikipedia has no issue whatsoever in this regard. Further, NASA is a government department, and they do not get to assert copyright on any materials, by law. In some cases materials are produced by contractors who are non governmental and may have chosen to continue hold copyright on those materials, but that isn't the case here. Could you point me to the wikipedia policy you are using to tag and presumably delete nearly all of the wikipedia's NASA images so that I can kill this completely moronic trend before this utterly asinine stupidity causes any more damage?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am upholding the image use policy which requires a source and copyright tag. The sourcing information must be enough to verify the copyright license on the page. MECU≈talk 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting to act outside wikipolicy here. Incidentally, Jimmy Wales just gave his opinion that NASA licensing is compatible with the wikipedia on wikien.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not. Please WP:AGF. Where is Jimmy do that, can you link to that please? MECU≈talk 00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the tag you've used is incorrect. The correct version is in wikimedia: Wikimedia Template:PD-USGov-NASA you'll notice that it doesn't claim copyright on the meatball logo, and points to the regulation that controls how the meatball can be used. We need an admin to update this template in the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem we have two license tags for the same license and we should definitely, as part of this IFD, eliminate one of them. MECU≈talk 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep. That "meatball" is put there by NASA to prove that the image is theirs, is PD, and can/should be freely used. The only restriction on the meatball is that people other than NASA can't fraudulently apply it to non-NASA images. There is no, repeat no, restriction against using the NASA images. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the best thing to do is simply remove that meatball then and remove any risk of it not being PD . see what I did Image:NASA bipropellant Lrockth.png (image is on commons). Problem solved. βcommand 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is Good. Why would we convince ourselves we have to remove an attribution? —Steve Summit (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No copyright issue. The logo and the image are explicitly public domain. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If the logo bothers you that much, remove it. --Carnildo (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is as straightforward as people are saying, it is somewhat non-free as there are legal restrictions to its use, but it is free with regard to copyright. I don't think we have good policy on free images that are encumbered by various other non-copyright related laws. (wheelchair logo, sigh) Anyway, we are not breaking the laws, and downstream users probably wouldn't either, and it is free copyright-wise, so keep. - cohesion 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The logo isn't copyrighted. This would be like saying we shouldn't have images of US money since counterfeiting bills is illegal. --Sopoforic (talk) 23:00, 2 April 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 source website as the Library of Congress hosts many public domain images, this one doesn't fit the same purpose as other media, the license is ambiguous, and a free one (better, larger) could be created MECU≈talk 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete something, given that it's in use.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguous copyright is a valid deletion reason. Being in use is not a valid reason to keep. MECU≈talk 19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link on the page bring you right to the page where I found the picture. I'm not sure where the problem is. If someone would be so kind as to explain it to me, I would be most obliged. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that the photo is part of a Library of Congress collection (if it was, there would be a page with information about its copyright status). The photographer credited, Bob Bieberdorf, might well be a government employee, but then again he might not be. My view is that this can be deleted because we are uncertain it is free, or someone can go and take a free photo. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: image moved to Commons. -Nv8200ptalk 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Low quality Kellyhi! 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:If I say photographed by uploader, it is a pretty good assumption that is the case! Similarly, it is a safe aaumption, I would not have uploaded it to waste my time. I have hundreds if not thousands of architectural images, all upload for future use, as and when I see them. I will be the best judge of their quality, and when is the appropriate time to use them. I have never heard such a ridiculous reason for deletion in all my time on Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quality seems good enough for our use. Giano has stated that a future use is likely. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete given other than it is orphaned, when it is not orphaned. Being very low quality is also not a good reason for deletion on its own(imo). It is being used in userspace. Though threats like this[1] are not an appropriate way to express dissatisfaction with a nomination. (1 == 2)Until 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see your reknowned sense of humour is still with us - did you know your sig is slippng down and gone too small - why did you change your name anyway? Giano (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Wikimedia Commons is used to store tens of thousands of clearly non-encyclopedic snapshots, what is the motive for selecting this one? --Wetman (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we discussed this in IRC and decided we liked it ;) --Docg 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rather odd proposal as by Wiki-standards this is clearly not "Low quality". Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I trust Giano would use it eventually. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it totally impossible to either get a better shot of this yourself, or ask someone else to do so? Not essential, but if you tried to use this in an article, I would hope someone would eventually get hold of a better picture. Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - image is now on Commons with same name. Kellyhi! 12:39, 1 April 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.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kellyhi! 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: moved to Commons. -Nv8200ptalk 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned map. Kellyhi! 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rationale here? We've no need to delete orphaned free images which may come in useful some day, and I can find neither a policy nor a guideline suggesting that we should delete them. Angus McLellan(Talk) 11:59, 1 April 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.
Decieving - The user cloned an existing map of world poverty (Original:[2]), changed a few South American countries (halved their poverty rates) and added to the description that the data is from "multiple" sources, though no sources are given. This user has also repeatedly altered information on the List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty article, against its sources, to show those same countries as having half the poverty rates that they really do. This to me proves that the only purpose of this map is to decieve. This is the second time the user has done this, and that's after trying to alter the already existing map and having the changes reverted. Sbw01f (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The website makes it seem like the painter is a non-federal government employee since he does many different people (ie, not just presidents). This work was most likely commissioned by Wisconsin which would not be the federal government and therefore not in the public domain. Fair use may not apply because of the resolution of the image and subject has just recently died. Work definately infringes on the artist's ability/ownership. MECU≈talk 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned map. Kellyhi! 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Come in handy at some time to someone. Maps ot the Two Sicilies are always useful. Giano (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very low resolution. Not in English. Not worth keeping. -Nv8200ptalk 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is encyclopedic content, no harm in keeping. The image was uploaded for a reason and until I'm sure it is no long of use to the person uploading, keep. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on Commons with same name. Kellyhi! 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Omegatron 18:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Percent_poverty_world_map.png){kind=link}
