Single-purpose account uploaded the image. The user claims the image is self-made, although I am very doubtful. The image is unencyclopedic, and has been orphaned from the article
Vampire squid where it clearly did not belong.
Silly rabbit (
talk)
02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image is a copyright violation; blatantly copied from
gocarlo.com. The original author's watermark is still in the image itself as well!
Conk 9 tagged it as public domain, but it is clearly not so; it's a professional image. The uploaded was also recently banned from editing for a series of other image copyright violations, based on information on his/her talk page.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
06:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This almost looks like the word "ass", which Tom Cruise (male ass, FYI) is purportedly obsessed with. What could be wrong with this image? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.85.215.77 (
talk)
02:03, 9 February 2008 (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.
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 10:42, 6 February 2008 (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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)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.
This image appears to be a work of the City of Houston, not the United States Federal Government, as asserted by the image license tag -- see
[1], the page from which the image was downloaded. Media created by local governments are not automatically released into the public domain.
John25420:09, 2 February 2008 (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.
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. -
Nv8200ptalk02:00, 8 February 2008 (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 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.
Single-purpose account uploaded the image. The user claims the image is self-made, although I am very doubtful. The image is unencyclopedic, and has been orphaned from the article
Vampire squid where it clearly did not belong.
Silly rabbit (
talk)
02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Image is a copyright violation; blatantly copied from
gocarlo.com. The original author's watermark is still in the image itself as well!
Conk 9 tagged it as public domain, but it is clearly not so; it's a professional image. The uploaded was also recently banned from editing for a series of other image copyright violations, based on information on his/her talk page.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
06:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This almost looks like the word "ass", which Tom Cruise (male ass, FYI) is purportedly obsessed with. What could be wrong with this image? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.85.215.77 (
talk)
02:03, 9 February 2008 (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.
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 10:42, 6 February 2008 (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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 08:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. JGHowestalk - 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
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)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.
This image appears to be a work of the City of Houston, not the United States Federal Government, as asserted by the image license tag -- see
[1], the page from which the image was downloaded. Media created by local governments are not automatically released into the public domain.
John25420:09, 2 February 2008 (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.
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. -
Nv8200ptalk02:00, 8 February 2008 (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 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.