Claimed as fair use, but insufficient fair-use rational given for the pages in question. Portions of the fair use rational is conflicting with the fact that it is directly sourced. Sigma 711:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, poor quality, orphan, possibly copyright violations. A series of images uploaded by Acom to illustrate various space missions. The images appear to be digital composites of a drawing of a spacecraft and either a telescopic image or an artist's rendition of a space body, such as an asteroid or the planet pluto. The images are low quality often with obvious pixelation artifacts. The images are unencyclopedic because they represent an impossible viewpoint; if these were official NASA images released to illustrate the mission, they might have merit, but as is, they are at best highly speculative original research. The images are possible copyright violations because no sources are provided for the original images used to make the composite. They might be PD-NASA, they might not be. All are orphans.
Delete. Copyright violation, especially on the photos. Also because of the rubbish quality and dumb wordart on some of them... I've been trying to get rid of these images for a while now... Acom hasn't been in contact with anyone... I think it's fair that unless he doesn't respond the images should go. Smiley20018:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image was first deleted on here as having no source. Later it was also deleted on Commons for the same reason. See this discussion. The image has been re uploaded here as non-free per the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Because recently a public domain image Image:Rashi woodcut.jpg of Rashi has been upload the non-free image should be deleted. Note, this image might be in the public domain, however no one seems to able to find proof of that. Garion96(talk)22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This image is quite likely to be pre-1923. However, even if it isn't yet in the public domain de jure, it is de facto. It's been used ubiquitously for at least the past several decades, and nobody's ever challenged its use let alone sued for it. Let's not forget the reason why we need to verify PD; it's so that WP doesn't get sued, and so that people feel free to copy from WP without fear of being sued. In this case, the chance of a long-lost heir of the original artist ever emerging to sue anyone for using this picture is negligible. Nobody else in the world seems bothered by this question so why should we be? Let's not be bureaucrats, obeying a rule just for its own sake; let's use some common sense, which will show us immediately that this is a case where the reason for the rule doesn't apply, and leave the image up. -- Zsero22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Be careful of bending the rules just because "it's ok this once". It sets a precedent that too often gets used as leverage in less worth cases. --Firienneed help?10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the attempt to delete the image comes from people setting a precedent that treats the need for documenting PD status as if it existed for its own sake, instead of for a reason. Once again, let's not be bureaucrats. -- Zsero03:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image This image is still significant because it is the only image of Rashi that is widely used and inclusion of it in the article means that people will be able to identify with it. It also has very low resolution and has been published outside Wikipedia. It is also claimed by a couple of editors to be PD, (“I have seen same image on a French dictionary dating of 1923” and “I saw it in a PD book once”) but they cannot at present find the source. In this instance of doubt, I think there is no harm in keeping it. Chesdovi11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't have an adequate source. Sorry, but that's a non-negotiable requirement for us to use material (unless it can be shown to be out of copyright). – Quadell(talk) (random)01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, but you don't address why it's so non-negotiable. This seems like instruction creep. WP is not a bureaucracy, and rules exist for a reason. When the reason for a rule is patently inapplicable, so is the rule. -- Zsero03:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Wikimedia licensing resolution on the use of non-free content. It states "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." This resolution requires that we only use non-free material under our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), which is here and (as we all know) requires an explicit source. – Quadell(talk) (random)03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EDP only applies to non-free content. So does the WMF resolution. This content is free, at least de facto. There is zero chance of anyone being sued for using it, no matter what its technical legal status may turn out to be. -- Zsero01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
