Commons:Deletion requests/File:1RXS J160929.1-210524 b.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
NOT a work of the US federal government. See http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?q=node/14 for image licensing details. howcheng {chat} 07:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Public funding (i.e., taxer-payers monies) were used in the research leading to its discovery. --Thorwald (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep After reading the license details and looking at the links cited by the uploader there are two reasons to keep this. 1. As long as we credit "Gemini Observatory/Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy" they are cool with non-commercial use. 2. The image appears to come from a PDF downloaded via a collaboration website of Cornell and the Los Alamos National Laboratory anyway. Anynobody (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Commercial use should be allowed. See COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain. 2) It's irrelevant. Trycatch (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- 3) It doesn't matter if the immediate source was a LANL PDF; their usage of the item does not transfer the rights from Gemini Observatory. howcheng {chat} 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PD-USGov template works only if an image was created by a government employee. Trycatch (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment I suggest someone contact them, their image use policy is here, and see if they'll release it under a compatible license. Otherwise their policy would probably be easy justification to use it locally for wiki's under fair use rules. If the decision is to delete it off of Commons, would be nice if the deleting admin puts a note on the wiki's that use it to let them know to use fair-use options if they wish. This photograph is notable enough alone to have an article on it, so I think it covers fair-use requirements at least as they're written for the English wiki. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
