- 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:TTRnew2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Petergriffin9901 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Grossly fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. There is no contextual significance supported by any source in the article. Easily replaceable by saying "Carey standing on a street while it rains" or something inline. No need of a non-free content to illustrate that and removal is not detrimental in understanding the article and the section. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:41, 8 May 2015 (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 discussion was: Keep as fair use rationale has been cleaned up. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 14:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:IC 1101, telescope image.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Asyulus ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The fair use justification is invalid. It is clearly an illustration of IC 1101, but it seems unlikely that no suitable free image is available. (The licensing template also incorrectly describes this image as a screenshot of a web site.) —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I've looked and have found no free alternatives. Despite the galaxy's size, it still requires significantly large telescopes to see it that an average person will not have access to. — Huntster ( t @ c) 19:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor whose edit drew my attention to this image notes (by email to me) that David Aguilar (to whom the image is credited) is a public affairs offer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (until recently) and now NASA, making it seem likely that the reason this image is so much prettier than anything else I can find is that it's an artist's impression. The
source for the image is very unclear about where it comes from, so it's very hard to judge. I can't find the original source. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
23:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Huntster: I have been forwarded an email from the CfA public affairs office confirming that this image is an artist's impression. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Ashill, that's great Alex. I would still suggest that fair use is acceptable here under the idea that obtaining a free version would be an unreasonable hardship, given the nature of the object. I've continued searching for a free alternative and still have found nothing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ Huntster: Thanks. Your revised fair use rationale convinces me that this probably is fair use and thus shouldn't be deleted. To be explicit, I now oppose deleting the image (as nominator). There is a discussion to be had about whether an artist's impression is best for use at IC 1101, but I'll start that in a better place ( Talk:IC 1101). —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Ashill, that's great Alex. I would still suggest that fair use is acceptable here under the idea that obtaining a free version would be an unreasonable hardship, given the nature of the object. I've continued searching for a free alternative and still have found nothing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Huntster: I have been forwarded an email from the CfA public affairs office confirming that this image is an artist's impression. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor whose edit drew my attention to this image notes (by email to me) that David Aguilar (to whom the image is credited) is a public affairs offer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (until recently) and now NASA, making it seem likely that the reason this image is so much prettier than anything else I can find is that it's an artist's impression. The
source for the image is very unclear about where it comes from, so it's very hard to judge. I can't find the original source. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
23:40, 8 May 2015 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:TTRnew2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Petergriffin9901 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Grossly fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. There is no contextual significance supported by any source in the article. Easily replaceable by saying "Carey standing on a street while it rains" or something inline. No need of a non-free content to illustrate that and removal is not detrimental in understanding the article and the section. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:41, 8 May 2015 (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 discussion was: Keep as fair use rationale has been cleaned up. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 14:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:IC 1101, telescope image.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Asyulus ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
The fair use justification is invalid. It is clearly an illustration of IC 1101, but it seems unlikely that no suitable free image is available. (The licensing template also incorrectly describes this image as a screenshot of a web site.) —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I've looked and have found no free alternatives. Despite the galaxy's size, it still requires significantly large telescopes to see it that an average person will not have access to. — Huntster ( t @ c) 19:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor whose edit drew my attention to this image notes (by email to me) that David Aguilar (to whom the image is credited) is a public affairs offer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (until recently) and now NASA, making it seem likely that the reason this image is so much prettier than anything else I can find is that it's an artist's impression. The
source for the image is very unclear about where it comes from, so it's very hard to judge. I can't find the original source. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
23:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Huntster: I have been forwarded an email from the CfA public affairs office confirming that this image is an artist's impression. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Ashill, that's great Alex. I would still suggest that fair use is acceptable here under the idea that obtaining a free version would be an unreasonable hardship, given the nature of the object. I've continued searching for a free alternative and still have found nothing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @ Huntster: Thanks. Your revised fair use rationale convinces me that this probably is fair use and thus shouldn't be deleted. To be explicit, I now oppose deleting the image (as nominator). There is a discussion to be had about whether an artist's impression is best for use at IC 1101, but I'll start that in a better place ( Talk:IC 1101). —Alex ( Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Ashill, that's great Alex. I would still suggest that fair use is acceptable here under the idea that obtaining a free version would be an unreasonable hardship, given the nature of the object. I've continued searching for a free alternative and still have found nothing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
05:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @
Huntster: I have been forwarded an email from the CfA public affairs office confirming that this image is an artist's impression. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor whose edit drew my attention to this image notes (by email to me) that David Aguilar (to whom the image is credited) is a public affairs offer for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (until recently) and now NASA, making it seem likely that the reason this image is so much prettier than anything else I can find is that it's an artist's impression. The
source for the image is very unclear about where it comes from, so it's very hard to judge. I can't find the original source. —Alex (
Ashill |
talk |
contribs)
23:40, 8 May 2015 (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.