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:Intelligencesummit.jpg

Image:Intelligencesummit.jpg ( delete| talk| history| logs) - uploaded by Mike18xx ( notify | contribs).

• Delete copyrighted image, and Service Mark with poor fair use rationale. There is no need to "illustrate the logo" of every conference that exists; the use of it on the Wikipedia article makes it look like the article is a press release from the organization, which raises important trademark law concerns as well as obvious NPOV issues. There is no need for this image on Wikipedia and the only reason it seems to be used is to make a non-notable organization seem more legitimate. — csloat 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC). (Note this violates both copyright and trademark law). reply
• Keep. This organization logo has a fair-use tag and a fair-use rational which are nearly identical to that of the famous CBS "eye" logo (and the CBS eye logo is lossless, scalable postscript while TIS' is just a pixel-field). Sloat is also on a (so far losing) campaign to delete the Wikipage concerning the organization itself, so I maintain there's some bad-faith involved in targeting this picture.-- Mike18xx 02:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Please read WP:AGF and follow Wikipedia policies. I recognize that I am losing the AfD on the article because some consider the organization barely notable; that does not automatically make this image important to have on Wikipedia, however, and it certainly has nothing to do with my faith. I ask that you withdraw your attack on my faith. As I said on the talk page, I'm sorry you're taking this all so personally. For me it is simply about improving this encyclopedia. csloat 21:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • What makes you think I'm taking any of this personally? It may surprise you to know that I don't particularly care one way or another about The Intelligence Summit; I recreated the page merely because I was tired of seeing oranged-out links to it elsewhere. You know what else? I don't care what your ulterior motive is for wanting the see this article buried under the rug (you've certainly invested a lot of effort in it). I figure that almost everyone on Wikipedia has a motivation beyond the one they claim. To me, you're just another editor, different from the guy I was tangling with last week, and different from the guy I'll be tangling with next week. BTW, citing WF:AGF first should not be construed as claiming the moral high-ground and being entitled to the last word.-- Mike18xx 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep: An important and notable organization, I dont see why this is not fair use. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 11:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - if the article goes, lose the image, otherwise it looks fine to me, and appears to meet fair use criteria. -- Haemo 08:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment The use is fair use for the article, but grabbing the complete masthead is a bit much; in my opinion it looks awful. Why not use just the seal by itself? A quick Google image search reveals a nice version. [1] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's not the complete masthead. In any event, there are other organization articles with masthead pics, so this isn't anything new. (While round logos are pretty, the plethora of round logos with tiny text around their edges makes it difficult to differentiate many organizations without a lot of squinting.)-- Mike18xx 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Kept. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 20:54, 18 June 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.

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 is keep for now - I have emailed NASA to inquire as to the source of the image.  If it is not PD, then the image can be re-nominated to determine whether or not it is fair use. --
BigDT 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply

Image:Political_Shirley_Temple.jpg

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

• Originally tagged as PD-USGov-NASA, now changed to non-free promotional. However, does not meet WP:NFCC item 10 in that the copyright holder is not known. howcheng { chat} 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep. Original uploaded did not provide a usage URL from the NASA site, here is where it's used. Images on NASA's websites are PD unless otherwise noted. AKRadecki ^Speaketh 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That doesn't mean that this is a NASA photo, but it is possible that it's a US Government photo. Still, I think the actual source (i.e., creator) is required, not just where it was downloaded from. howcheng { chat} 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep. 45yo B&W low-res photo of a public figure smiling.-- Mike18xx 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. This is a difficult case. NASA's website says that all images, unless otherwise specified, are in the public domain. I strongly suspect that they erred here, and that this image is copyrighted. But I don't know for sure, and I can't find an alternate original source who might hold the copyright. I'm not sure what to do here. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, NASA's policies say that NASA materials are in the public domain. There is no evidence that shows this photo is a work of NASA. howcheng { chat} 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

According to your link: "14. Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted." - N 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep her article says her posts were federal, I see no proof this is not her official government portrait, which makes it automatically {{ PD-USGov}}. - N 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on the uploader to prove that it's an official government portrait. It might be, and it might not be, but without an accurate source, there's no way of knowing. howcheng { chat} 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • How about it's origin on a US government server with a license that plainly says that unless the photo is otherwise captioned it's PD? I know most of us mistrust the government but licensing on a government website is one thing they are usually good about. - N 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I really want to believe that this is a US government portrait, but there's just no proof. Conceivably we could replace it with an image of her from this NASA PDF which is guaranteed to be PD instead. howcheng { chat} 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Again, the license plainly states that unless captioned the photo is PD. Why does the uploader have the burden of proving NASA is correct without any evidence to the contrary? - N 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Is there any real reason not to believe it is PD? The source website says that she did work for the US government, so it's perfectly reasonable that the government would have a photo of her. If NASA claims that the image is PD and we have no evidence to dispute their claim, then there's no real reason not to take their word for it. -- BigDT 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• I am closing this as a keep for now - I have emailed NASA to inquire as to the source of the image. If it is not PD, then the image can be re-nominated to determine whether or not it is fair use. -- BigDT 17:30, 24 June 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.