Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 2

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

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

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Keep - Agreed with Addhoc and JustaHulk --Raymondgangel (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep - Agreed, as per logo fair use rationale and Addhoc's argument. - A.J. (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Key symbol in identifying subject. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Keep -- important and fair use. Maikel (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is appropriate use of a logo. Doczilla (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

(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)

• 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)

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)

• Keep -- important and fair use. Maikel (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is appropriate and fair use of a logo image. Doczilla (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Fair use rationale applies to this image as well as any other corporate logo. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, important, interesting image. Proper fair use image. Dreadstar † 07:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

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

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)

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• Delete. Redundant to Image:Scientology Symbol Logo.jpg, which appears to be the most official rendering. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep -- important and fair use. And storage space isn't the issue here. Maikel (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Use is redundant, which makes it harder to justify fair use. Doczilla (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)
  • Change to logo tag. -Nv8200p talk 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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.