Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 15

Hugh of Lincoln.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Hugh of Lincoln.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by MartinHarper ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary. Text is quoted in article. ViperSnake151 Talk  00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  A picture is worth 1000 words, and the sight of this plaque hanging where it does is powerful evidence of the change in attitudes between then and now.  Merely describing the plaque would not do the same.  Otherwise we may as well get rid of every fair use image on WP, becuase we could just describe them instead.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If the text is quoted in the article, this doesn't meet WP:NFCC, as the quote is used under fair-use as well.  Fails WP:NFCC.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can always take the text out of the article, and leave it only in the picture. -- Zsero (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle. If the image was public domain, it would be fine, but it isn't.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (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.

Wallace & Darwin.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Wallace & Darwin.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Virginal6 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned for more than two months. Plus the image is composed of other images, which are likely to be copyrighted, making this a derivative work, which is not eligible for a free license. Hux (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The elements of this image need to be identified by the uploader so we can check their copyright status. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You Know Sixtin Chapel ceiling. Darwin and Wallace face were taken from very old photos we used to construct a poster for our walls ,coloured and retouched with Corel and other painting programs. This is our own work,additional drawings ,insect etc.But you will tell if this is appropriate. This is because I did not put in the page straight away --Virginal6 (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a collage of free available Internet figures.
 * The Michelangelo work (commons:File:God2-Sistine Chapel.png) is public domain, however we need more information about the other components; e.g. the replacement heads, globe, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

--83.40.4.56 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been done because many people in our Institutiom has done similar posters this year when Darwin is celebrated.My colleagues and myself have done this in only a few hours.I will write a full inform about heads source (particularly) and others as soon one of them comes back from a congress or I can reach by phone.I do not remember exactly the heads detail.But they may.


 * The question still remains whether there is an encyclopedic use for this. Since it's unused anywhere, I am leaning toward Delete, regardless of the possible licensing issues. —Bkell (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Have to appreciate the artistic talent of putting the images together, but it serves no purpose for any encyclopedia article. Possibility of individual images violating copyright is just icing on the Delete cake. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just to be placed in User:Virginal6 page,without any comment.I am just in the process of collecting data about where exactly the 2 faces were taken (although they were later changed for getting the desired expressions).I think I could have the right to put in my page non-subjected to copyright images.--Virginal6 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how things work here. We're even stricter on use of images on user pages then we are on articles because user pages are not about education, etc., and less likely to get away with copyright violations due to fair use exemptions. An image that has no expectation of ever being on an article has no valid reason to be on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an educational page.The page has been taken from open gallery and then re-made for getting correct expression.This was done about two months ago,I am just waiting to somebody from my group give me the exact details:in fact,I believe that they are taken from the WP free Commons Gallery.If it cannot be put up,I will chose another picture.But I am almoust certain that it will be OK.Thank you--Virginal6 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, unencyclopedic and probably a derivative work. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These are original sources for the two faces :

1)Darwin.



It was later modified by computer drawing prograns

2)Wallace



It was heavily modified by computer drawing programs.

They are old photographs available to public,as far as I know.

Rest of the figure is artwork done by us,with Sistin Chapel ceiling as a background.--Virginal6 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (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.

Mackerras 2004 US Pendulum.JPG

 * 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: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC. – Quadell (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Mackerras 2004 US Pendulum.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Peter Ellis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * A free alternative could be created just by making a pendulum. Guy0307 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I explain on the image's page why I believe this is acceptable to have in Wikipedia: In essence, Malcolm Mackerras sent this to me for use on Wikipedia, after I have explained to him the background and 'essence' of Wikipedia. This image was subject to "rapid deletion" after the 2004 US election result became apparent (I guess people had a different view of the result than this offered); but, if it is not needed to illustrate the Mackerras pendulum or remain elsewhere then I will not defy the collective wisdom of Wikipedians. - Peter Ellis - Talk 01:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether Mackerras gave it to you or not. In both cases, it is Fair Use, and his "permission" is meaningless. The image is obviously replaceable as all you need to do to illustrate one of these is create another one. Guy0307 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as replaceable fair use. If Mr. Mackerras wants this on Wikipedia, it'll need to be under a free license. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While "...sent this to me for use on Wikipedia" is irrelevant as that is not a rationale for inclusion on Wikipedia, this copyrighted image cannot be reproduced without violating copyright. Accordingly, it needs to meet our non-free content criteria. I believe fair use applications of this image are apropos for Malcolm Mackerras and Mackerras pendulum.  — BQZip01 —  talk 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These article are not about a specific image, but about a concept which can be illustrated by a home-made free image just as easily. – Quadell (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (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.

1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:1 c-iron cove-balmain1, new south wales.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Adam.J.W.C. ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * NFCC 4, no free license given ViperSnake151 Talk  15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – A very nice photo, but unlicensed.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:12, 19 May 2009 (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.

CoyboyMASH.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:CoyboyMASH.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mhrmaw ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image makes no detailed non-free use rationale for it's use with regards to how it significantly improves the readers' understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC). Further, there is no critical commentary on the image in the article, nor on any potential imagery (WP:NFC). —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – It fails WP:NFCC, as it doesn't really significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, unlike many screenshots. It could be kept with good FUR, but it still would fail NFCC#8.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 02:10, 21 May 2009 (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.

Lilwilwilz.JPG

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Lilwilwilz.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Lilwilwilz ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic personal photo, used only on User:Lilwilwilz, which has been listed for deletion (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lilwilwilz). —Bkell (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Bkell (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, and low quality at that. Mm40 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – We don't do userspace spam.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (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.

Uncircumsized penis.gif

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Uncircumsized penis.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by BL ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Low quality, low-res, unused in articles, deprecated by numerous higher quality images. Papa November (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Papa November, low quality orphan.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (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.

Chotkov kloiz.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Chotkov kloiz.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Chesdovi ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Source does not indicate public domain status, no permission tag removed Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the source need to indicate this? It is quite obvious that his image was published before 1951. JewishGen, Inc. who have reproduced the image cannot use thier own copyright to override the images' PD status. Chesdovi (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. The licensing information must be verifiable by any user and WP:IUP says "Before you upload an image, make sure that … You can prove that the image is in the public domain". Also, don't confuse date of publication with date of production. The date this image was first published is not obvious. JewishGen doesn't give any copyright notice other than their own, can we confirm this image was published prior to their publication? Jay32183 (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "proof" that this is in the PD is that the image was taken and most certainly published before WW2. In the war the kloiz was destroyed, so the image cannot have been produced after 1951. The Yizkor Book was not published by JewishGen in 1999, but by "Former residents of Czortkow in Israel" in 1967. As it is practically impossible to acertain the exact history of this image, it is safe to assume that most certainly the image was not printed for the first time in 1967 from a 30 year old+ negative. Chesdovi (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we don't have an author or a year of first publication, then we don't have proof of public domain. Jay32183 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just becuase we don't have these details as facts does not preclude us from knowing that the image is PD. I have described how the image MUST have been taken before 1951. I am sure that this is sufficient criteria and that the same view is taken for the thousands of other old images here, for example File:Holodomor2.jpg, File:Pavel Rybalko.jpg. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Holodomor2.jpg does have the necessary information, the source confirms publication in 1933. File:Pavel Rybalko.jpg, I can't comment on, it has a valid source, but I can't read the language the page is printed in. Jay32183 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The File:Holodomor2.jpg source does not state that the date of publication was 1933. "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine, 1932-1933: Western Archives, Testimonies and New Research" is merely the title for the research that was published in 2003. Not proof enough that the image was published in 1933 according to your interpretaton of policy. Chesdovi (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) There is also no detail supplied for the File:Pavel Rybalko.jpg image at its source. Chesdovi (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  It is perfectly obvious from its source that it's a pre-war image.  That doesn't just mean that it was taken pre-war and first published post-war; where would the Yizkor-book publishers have got it, except from a previous publication, such as a book or newspaper?  Its appearance itself indicates a reproduction from an earlier source.  That makes it PD.
 * The standard of proof required here is not "beyond reasonable doubt"; this is neither a physics experiment nor a criminal trial. The standard here is merely one of confidence.  I am confident that it is PD, and I think anybody familiar with the subject will tell you the same.  Against that nobody is asserting that it's not PD.  So the PD claim stands unchallenged.  -- 03:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "pre-war" is meaningless, especially if you don't indicate which war. Being reproduced from an earlier work doesn't make it public domain. Copyright is held unless public domain is explicitly stated. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for proof here. Your confidence that the image is in the public domain is meaningless since you don't have a source to substantiate that claim. You aren't making your arguments based on WP:IUP. Your points are quite explicitly described as incorrect. "You can prove that the image is in the public domain" isn't really something open for interpretation. You haven't proved it, you've only claimed it. We aren't even certain the country of first publication is Ukraine, as indicated by the license tag. The image would also need to be public domain in the US to be free use on Wikipedia, which means we need evidence of publication prior to 1946 according to the tag. We don't have an author or publication date. The current license tag requires knowledge of both. Jay32183 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. If you don't know which war, or if you think it needs to be explained, then you have no business expressing an opinion on this subject.   It is a pre-War photo, published pre-War.  The subject is in the Ukraine, therefore it stands to reason that the photo was published in the Ukraine, and was reproduced from that publication in the Yizkor book.  And you are utterly wrong that "copyright is held unless public domain is explicitly stated"; old works are in the public domain by their very nature, regardless of what anyone states.  They were never copyright in the first place.
 * As for your ridiculous assertion that the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard applies, it's self-refuting. You're ignoring the purpose of the image use policy, which is to protect WP from getting sued by a claimant to the copyright.  Reasonable doubt would not be the standard in any such lawsuit, therefore it's absurd to suggest that it's the standard here.  And the fact that the Yizkor-book publishers have not been sued in 50 years is itself a pretty good indicator that there isn't anybody who can or will bring such a suit.  (Or do you imagine there is even the tiniest chance that they got permission?)  -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The image use policy is not to protect Wikipedia from getting sued. Wikipedia has stricter standards than the general legal standards in the United States. Even if the use is legal, not meeting the WP:IUP is grounds for deletion. Being able to verify the license is a requirement of all images on Wikipedia. The default assumption is "all rights reserved" unless we have proof to the contrary. If we don't have an author or a year of first publication, then we don't have proof of public domain. "Pre-war" is not a year of publication and is a meaningless term. There have been hundreds of wars. Jay32183 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again with your ridiculous pretense that you don't know which war we're talking about. You have no valid point here and are merely rules-lawyering.  WP is not about rules but about common sense, and it is perfectly obvious to any reasonable person that this image is PD and should stay.  -- Zsero (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the nominator and commentator here, Jay32183, is pursuing an extreme interpretation of image use. These policies and guidelines are instructions to the uploader on what to do, not deletion criteria.  They have made a number of bad and sometimes pointy and ridiculous deletion tags and nominations.  This one is not quite ridiculous, but the image complies with all of the polices and seems to be public domain.  To demand positive proof goes well beyond any normal understanding of image use policy.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the WP:IUP specifically say "You can prove that the image is in the public domain". There's no way to interpret that other than we need proof of the public domain status. Are you actually reading the policy or just guessing? Jay32183 (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know policy well - don't get personal with nonstandard and bizarre interpretations of the rules. An assertion by an editor that they are donating their image to the public domain means just that.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can only donate an image you own. All images must list a license and a source. Jay32183 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this tag:
 * Delete unless definitive proof of public domain status is shown. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This image is sourced and was taken in the USSR before 1951. It is therefore PD in Ukraine, the present day location of the building featured in the image. Chesdovi (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for date of publication? The date the photo was taken is not the date of publication, neither is the date of development. To be considered free use on Wikipedia it must also be public domain in the US, which means publication before 1946 according to this license. This license can't be used without date of publication. Best guess is not enough. If we could guess, WP:CSD wouldn't exist. Jay32183 (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that only Commons requires PD in USA aswell? Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2009 (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.

aspb.gif

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Aspb.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by k4ng ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * obsolete K4ng (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by smaller jpg for use in info box. aspoblogo.jpg
 * 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.

Me_wearing_under_armour.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Me_wearing_under_armour.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Csteel0224 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Research done indicates user is a pedophile. Any pictures of children uploaded by him should thus be deleted. See my talk page for extensive proof of my allegation. Bigpindahouse (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need here to invoke reasons that are not readily apparent and open to interpretation and dispute. The image is orphaned and unencyclopedic. It is a blurry low-quality picture of the back of an anonymous person wearing Under Armour, long ago added and subsequently removed from that article; these are sufficient reasons for listing the file for deletion. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I list many pieces of evidence on my talk page that point to this user's sexual preferences. If there is a better reason to remove a picture than the fact that is a picture of minor posted by a pedophile I don't know it. I know it is not immediately evident, that's why the pictures have been up so long. But if you take the time to research their edits and pictures it shows who this person probably is. I can't 100 percent prove it, I'm not a mind reader, but I have posted enough information that points strongly to my conclusion. This picture should be deleted as soon as possible.Bigpindahouse —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * (EDIT: Sorry I misread your post, thought you were saying it shouldn't be deleted.)


 * Delete per my reasoning below. --NE2 07:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as image has no realistic use, however I wouldn't go so far as to say the uploader is a pedophile because they have a picture of a kid wearing under armor. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 15:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real encyclopedic use. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2009 (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.

Dunk_Tank.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Dunk_Tank.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Csteel0224 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Research done indicates user is a pedophile. Any pictures of children uploaded by him should thus be deleted. See my talk page for extensive proof of my allegation. Bigpindahouse (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my reasoning below. --NE2 07:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Once again out of the SCOPE of wikipedia. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 15:09, 16 May 2009 (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.

Kidswetclothes.jpg

 * 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Kidswetclothes.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Guyonsticks ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Research done indicates user is a pedophile. Any pictures of children uploaded by him should thus be deleted. See my talk page for extensive proof of my allegation. Bigpindahouse (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no proof anywhere that this user is a pedophile. It may be inferred, but only through a large assumption of bad faith and tenuous reasoning. Unless this connection can be shown, should we not assume good faith instead? TN X Man  00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigpindahouse —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * There may not be absolute proof but I feel there is enough evidence, specifically the fact he uploaded a picture of a teen from an apparent fetish video, combined with the types of the articles he edits means if you're familiar with wet and messy fetishism it seems he has it and the few pics he's uploaded have been minors, not adults, which points to him being a pedophile.
 * Delete. Whether or not the uploader is a pedophile, which is not really something we should be speculating about, this image is problematic, mainly because it is unsourced and therefore we have no way to confirm that it is released under a free license, but also possibly because it's a photo of a minor, and there may be issues with that. It's pretty common for someone to create an account and upload random photos from the internet, claiming to own the copyright. --NE2 07:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; this image is self-licensed as CC-BY-SA, barring evidence of copyright malfeasance or a history of bad uploads, why is the licensing in question? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per NE2. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (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.