Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 21

< October 20	October 22 >

October 21 edit

POV images by User:Arab League edit

Image:New Super Power.GIF edit

Image:Free Palestine 2.GIF edit

Image:Free Palestine 3.GIF edit

Image:Free Palestine 4.GIF edit

Image:Free Palestine 5.GIF edit

Image:Damascus.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:New Super Power.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:Free Palestine.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:Free Palestine 2.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:Free Palestine 3.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:Free Palestine 4.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

Image:Free Palestine 5.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arab League (notify | contribs).

I seriously believe these soapboxy images are not the reason why upload link exists. -- Cat ^chi? 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete They're orphaned and unencyclopedic. As it happens, I share the sentiment concerning Palestine, but this is an encyclopedia, not a political site, or a storage area for self-made pics. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg edit

Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zaphraud (notify | contribs).

Image used only for vandalism, bad license. east.718 at 05:54, 10/21/2007

User east718 is making an accusation here that is composed of two full-blown unsupported lies. The truth is:

1. The image was used in conjunction with an article that dealt with a Pokémon character, and the plush produced and marketed, and later, recalled. Furthermore, it was never used in conjunction with any vandalism that I am aware of.

2. The image license is NOT bad. The image in question was produced by a government run organization that led the recall, and is not copywrited as a result. The CSPS is a US (federal) agency, the license as described applies to this agency.

Zaphraud 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. With the combination of the image being orphaned, having no source, and the "DONOTWANT" title being part of another 4chan meme, I jumped the gun. Could you please provide a source for the image? In the meantime, I've asked an admin familiar with this for his input. east.718 at 08:57, 10/21/2007

"No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file." Hence orphaned fair use, speedy deletable as it is also only been used for vandalism. It has no reason to be here on ifd. -- Cat ^chi? 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not touching it (for obvious reasons) but I find it suspect that an image of a Mudkip doll can ever be government-done, since it's companies, not the federal government, who issue toy recalls (and I have every reason to expect this is an image of a recalled toy given that it mentions "needles"). It's speedyable on that basis alone. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source would have been obvious had I not made a typo in the original filename, then referenced that typo instead of the original site. CPSC, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The original page at www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04195.html features not one, but two agency produced images of Mudkip plush - the other one is even dead center, right where you can't miss it, last but definitely not least on the bottom of the page. I suspect that the reason for the inclusion of the needles in the first place is that somebody noticed, after the fact, that Mudkip's fin flops over, but that is just a guess based on an observation that another effective way to keep Mudkip's fin erect is to use an external support ring. Also, its not "fair use" if it comes from Uncle Sam, its "public domain", right? As far as being the image of something trademarked, if that even applies... my guess is that this would only cross the boundary back into "fair use" territory if something other than the original, federally produced image were distributed, but I'm not a lawyer, just a law-abiding citizen. Zaphraud 23:39, 26 October 2007 (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:

Lorelei7 images edit

Unclear copyright. Image descritpion page says "for education/nonprofit use on Wikipedia.org" which to me seems to indicate a license that is not totally free. The claim iv vague enough to warrant suspicion, and I think we should be safe and delete the images until this issue is clarified. hbdragon88 07:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Unclear copyright indicates public domain or free images of which there are numerous on the internet. Keep the images in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.78.38 (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until clarified. States that copyright belongs to a company and that permission is given, then claims GFDL. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have emailed the uploader while there is no response from user talk page. I wonder if the uploader is Lorelei (bondage model). I hope that she will answer.--Jusjih 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the logs of all of these images plus Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg, Lorelei7 said when uploading "My company, Open Mind Media, Inc., has ownership and copyright of this image. The image is provided for educational/informational use at Wikipedia.org." then tagged GFDL. GFDL is a copyleft license. Copyright is not fully given up. As the wording does not say "for educational/informational use at Wikipedia.org only", I personally think that GFDL licensing is intended and thus lean to keep and then transwiki to Commons along with Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg, but I still respect your doubts. Lorelei's website receives too many incoming emails so it may take days to get any reply.--Jusjih 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the log, it says this: The image is provided f which means that she probably just ran out of summary space room but had she had room she would have declared "or educational/informational use at Wikipedia.org" I agree that it doesn't say only, which would be instantly bad and horrible, but again I state my doubts. hbdragon88 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg was removed from Gag (BDSM) on 2007-06-09 and orphaned in error leading to a deletion also indeed in error. Since it has the same type of copyright statement, I am bringing it for discussion here as well. I have found Image:Mummification-pvc-tape-lorelei.jpg from the source site free pics, but the image there is watermarked while the image uploaded here is not. If I do not receive a reply after my sent email, I will try a phone call to ask as well. I would like to take all of these eight images to Commons, but only if everything is clear.--Jusjih 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I find it improper to undelete the image without going through WP:DRV. It doesn't matter if the image was orphaned "impropertly" it was orphaned at the time of deletion, and thus a correct one, and should not have been redone without DRV approval. hbdragon88 01:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your doubt but I disagree your last opinion about my undeletion. I did look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy before undeleting. I did leave a courtesy notice to User_talk:Quadell#Image:Gag-tapegag-lorelei-15610.jpg and s/he said nothing. KK24 changed the image link to a copyvio and it was so wrong, but I never blamed Quadell for deleting an improperly orphaned image. Hbdragon88, you are blaming the wrong user, which is totally helpless to solve this issue. I emailed the uploader a few days without any response yet.--Jusjih 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, I'm not blaming you. I just commented, that's all. I'm a stickler for for process (WP:PII). Many thanks for your efforts in trying to improve the license of these images. hbdragon88 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your understanding. I cannot always watch all items nominated for deletion, especially when administering 10 Wiki sites. Be glad that a developer has enabled image undeletion.--Jusjih 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just called +1 818 832 1101 per http://www.bedroombondage.com/user-agreement.html (clean page). A man has just told me that Lorelei is out of town. I will try calling her again tomorrow per his instruction. Hopefully she can clear this matter soon.--Jusjih 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just called the same number again. A lady just told me that Lorelei is still out of town and will remain so for another week, but she said that she would try to pass a message that I am trying to get her. Per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia, even if the uploader did faithfully license these eight images under GFDL, having neither permission from the source website nor OTRS archive may still be questioned as "no permission" as on Commons.--Jusjih 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept the discussion on this page open for quite a while, waiting for a response. But I think that, for now, I'm going to go ahead and delete this images -- let me know if you hear anything new, and I'll be happy to restore them. -- RG² 12:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried my third phone call. A man just told me that Lorelei should be reachable in the office on Saturday between 12 and 22 hours UTC-8. As she gets too many emails, I will try calling again when convenient.--Jusjih 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tried calling again. A lady suggested me to try Friday or Saturday. I will try again on Saturday afternoon. When I asked if I could fax in any messages, I was told that I had to call in to tell first. As Lorelei gets too many emails, I am trying my best.--Jusjih 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great news: I called that number again and finally got Lorelei. She told me that she did edit Wikipedia with the username "Lorelei7". After exchanging our email addresses (that I will not publish here), she would specifically allow mine as a non-spam while she has got hundreds of emails daily and missed my emails sent through Wikipedia. To let her explain the copyright status of these eight images clearly, I provisionally undelete them now. Otherwise, she cannot see them.--Jusjih (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just emailed Lorelei asking if she does license these images under GFDL as I need a clear answer of either "yes" or "no", and she just replied "yes". I am forwarding the email to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org as evidence.--Jusjih (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I get no reply from permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org where I have emailed to, I am posting the email at Talk:Lorelei (bondage model) for your information, but I cannot transwiki these images to Commons without acknowledgment from any OTRS volunteer. Similarly, I have undeleted commons:Image:Frogtie-bb-lorelei-15303.jpg and tagged it OTRS pending but other images have not been posted there with the same names. I am still leaving this discussion open until any OTRS volunteer acknowledges my efforts.--Jusjih (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (admin here without OTRS access)[reply]

Kept and to be soon transwikied to Commons. After asking commons:User:Bryan to check OTRS, he found my forwarded email and gave me a green light to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons. His replying email gave me a tag with OTRS ticket number.--Jusjih (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (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:ScottRiggs.jpg edit

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

Image:ScottRiggs.jpg - obsoleted by Image:ScottRiggsPocono2007.jpg KaseyKahneFan 08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skylon.gif edit

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

Copyrighted image, obsolete to free File:Skylon.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on commons.- GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding File:Skylonv.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the nomination (Same uploader). Obselete to File:SkylonV.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also unused. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly contested. Image is licensed for the wikipedia's use, with attribution only conditions- replacement images are copyvio.WolfKeeper 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that they do look similar to the one that you have so kindly drawn my attention to (which I used as a reference in creating them), I can assure you that I created the two images that I uploaded myself. There are several ways in which I can prove they differ.

Firstly, the image in the PDF is also found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/hotol/skylon-schem.gif

It is a raster file (GIF). My images are vector (SVG). While it is possible to convert raster to vector, the process will produce a single object in the file. If you open the SVGs that I have produced using Inkscape, or a similar programme, you will see that they have been drawn from scratch.

There are also differences in the layout of the 4-view image. The raster image has the plan at the top and the side elevation at the bottom, whereas the vector image has these two the other way around. The same is true for the front and rear elevations.

There are also no centrelines on my images, as can clearly be seen on the raster file. In short, the images may be similar, but this is only to be expected as they are of the same thing.

The fact that your images are fair-use, against the free-use SVGs means that it does qualify for deletion. If I was being pedantic, SkylonV.gif qualifys for speedy deletion as it is unused fair use. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with the SVG have now been resolved. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iseeapedo.jpg edit

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

Used for vandalism only. User claim of {{GFDL-self}} is a bit suspicious as this appears to be an existing image with a caption added. edg ☺ ★ 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Altered non-free use image that was only uploaded to vandalize the articles on Lolicon and Shotacon‎. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 21 October 2007 (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:Human conjoined twins DSC09364.jpg edit

Orphaned,gruesome,Does not link with any files.coolgirly88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolgirly88 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted nomination, nominated image is File:Human conjoined twins DSC09364.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). My vote is to keep as image is freely licenced and per WP:NOT censored. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Commons image. -- RG ² 19:32, 21 October 2007 (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:DiNardo.jpg edit

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

Replaceable fair use: image acknowledges fair use but gives no rationale, and the picture is being used strictly for identification Nyttend 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people8.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people8.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people1.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people2.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people3.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people4.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people5.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people6.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ahwazi-people7.jpg edit

Image:Ahwazi-people7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

No proof that image is in the public domain. Strothra 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Edgar7Sanabria.jpg edit

Image:Edgar7Sanabria.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Router1 (notify | contribs).

The uploader claims that this is "a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of 17 U.S.C. § 105", however the source page (corrected link: [1] does not say so. High on a tree 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Drawing Of Stop Sign.JPG edit

Image:Drawing Of Stop Sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KXS-KXS (notify | contribs).

I think we can do better than this, even if it is a good faith addition! No offence to the uploader of course! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question added a pile of useless images made in paint for his own personal use. I'm going through them and marking them all for speedy. --Thespian 04:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:X-02.PNG edit

Image:X-02.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ACfan (notify | contribs).

Redundant fair use to GFDL'd Image:X-02.png ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:X02-1.jpg edit

Image:X02-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Macken985 (notify | contribs).

Redundant fair use to GFDL'd Image:X-02.png ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UKPoliceChiefSuper.gif edit

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

OB. Image is an incorrect illustration of the rank concerned, and has been replaced with a correct version at Image:UKPoliceChiefSuper2.gif. It is the latter version that is now used by all pages requiring this image. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jacobs_AJ.gif edit

Image:Jacobs_AJ.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Esprit15d (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted magazine cover being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IMEclipsed.jpg edit

Image:IMEclipsed.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by I am eclipsed (notify | contribs).

Unlikely to be used in any articles, ever, and was uploaded by an indefblocked sock. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London1.jpg edit

Image:London1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Bred (notify | contribs).

Useless, low quality, orphaned scribble. - Shiftchange 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tokyo1.jpg edit

Image:Tokyo1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Bred (notify | contribs).

Useless, low quality, orphaned scribble.

Image:RickRiordan.jpg edit

Image:RickRiordan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Babygator23 (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted book cover being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sager.jpg edit

Image:Sager.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TexasLaw08 (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted image being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CLSmith-Publicity-Thumb.jpg edit

Image:CLSmith-Publicity-Thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Todowd (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted image being used for identification of a living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Nv8200p talk 23:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xenu_BBC_Panorama.jpg edit

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

being used simply to show what xenu looks like, could be replaced by a user drawing Calliopejen1 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Not simply being used to illustrate the character "Xenu" in general, but specifically being used to illustrate Xenu, as depicted in the 1998 BBC Panorama documentary "The Road to Total Freedom?". In this sense, the image cannot be replaced by a drawing - as it is encapsulated in an analysis of Xenu as presented in that particular documentary, and its affect on popular culture and understanding of that part of Scientology doctrine. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note that this documentary is not discussed in either of the articles in which the image appears. Calliopejen1 00:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in the context of other programs that are discussed, it is appropriate, and further the caption should explain that this is only as depicted in the documentary. But also, thank you Calliopejen1, for pointing this out, the fact is that the documentary should be discussed more in those articles, and I will attempt to find some WP:RS sources to flesh that out, as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Until these sources exist and the image is discussed, it should not be used in the top right corner of the Xenu article, because that is the slot where an image goes to show what Xenu looks like. I do not have a pro- or anti-Scientology agenda here, just an pro-policy agenda. If the image does not contribute significantly to an article in a way that a free image cannot, it has to be replaced or deleted. Right now there is no discussion of the documentary, no explanation that this is documentary affected the perception of Xenu, etc etc (and even if it did, the picture should go next to that section, not in the header). Any such statements are currently WP:OR and do not justify keeping a nonfree image that is currently not enhancing readers' understanding about pop culture portrayals of Xenu and their significance (the stated reason for including this image, rather than to show what he looks like). Note that we have two other nonfree images showing other pop culture portrayals of Xenu--what precisely is this one adding that the others haven't already? Calliopejen1 02:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Curt's comments, there is no reason to delete this image.--Fahrenheit451 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any user drawing would be unsourced and original research. AndroidCat 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This pic is unsourced and original research, misleading. And meant to ridicule, it's only purpose. Misou 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The pic is sourced and is not original research. That is a false statement, Misou. It is Your opinion that it is only meant to ridicule. I refer you to Wikipedia policy on images.--Fahrenheit451 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research in that the BBC has no more authority to envision what Xenu looks like than does any Wiki user. Calliopejen1 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR as it is a cartoon depiction of a fictional character by a BBC illustrator. That image is quoted here.--Fahrenheit451 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scientologist censorship agenda, especially online, is well-documented enough that almost any objection to scientology related material should be treated as highly suspicious; while every religion may have an Inquisition hidden somewhere in the closet, that of the scientologist regime is quite recent. As such, scientology-related material should probably not be deleted without a court order demanding such action. Zaphraud 06:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid keep argument. If the image violates policy, we can't keep it just for the sake of having the largest repository of content related to scientology. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that I'm one of wikipedia's most vigilant image enforcers and have no grudge against scientology images, just all nonfree images. Calliopejen1 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Zaphraud (talk · contribs) and Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs). Calliopejen1 does not seem to have any sort of Church of Scientology related agenda, merely a Good Faith attempt to respect image policies. However, some of the points Zaphraud brings up are valid, related to concerns of censorship on the internet. Also however, I agree with Calliopejen1, that a discussion related to the image appropriateness itself would be more productive. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think WP should have an anti-Scientology tilt in order to counter-balance the Church of Scientology's agenda elsewhere. Nor is it the purpose of WP to serve as a shelter for information against possible censorship; that should be done elsewhere on the Internet. Steve Dufour 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a problem with another artist drawing a picture of Xenu and letting it be used in the article. Of course it should be an attempt to make an accurate picture and not to make fun. Steve Dufour 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, that would definitely be original research. We cannot do that.--Fahrenheit451 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that some articles have drawings made for them. I know that lots have photos taken especially for them. Of course they are not mostly as controversial as Xenu. I would prefer the BBC picture to be kept, but not if that is against WP policy. (p.s. I am assuming that the purpose of the BBC program was to inform people about Scientology, not to make fun of it like South Park, etc.) Steve Dufour 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could create a Wikipedia article about the 1998 BBC Panorama documentary "The Road to Total Freedom?" The image would certainly have a fair use case within that article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No consensus to delete; image kept. -- RG ² 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, it appears the votes have been tallied, however this is my 2 cents (pence depending on your location). the image is recognised as a depiction of Xenu by most people who are familiar with the topic...pro or con, they know what it represents by looking at it. an origional work would not hold the same value to the public eye. that should be the point of an image on the top of the page, recognition of the topic presented. if the church of scientology had an image they used regularly I would say use that one...however no image exists so we should use the next best thing which is a recognised depiction of Xenu. much like how Jesus is actually a depiction of a man from the middle ages, however everyone recognises him as Jesus, this picture holds the same thing. (crap! forgot to sign)Coffeepusher (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tom Paris.jpg edit

Image:Tom Paris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Obriensg1 (notify | contribs).

Speedy Delete - user uploaded image previously and was deleted due to non-free issues, user has uploaded the same image again under this name and using it in the same article. Being used to identify a living person, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tom3.jpg edit

Image:Tom3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Obriensg1 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image replaceable with free use image of living actor. Ejfetters 00:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]