Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2005 December 24

December 24

* Image:Human feces.jpg - not useful, plus is nasty. -- **Delete, I agree, it's also an orphan, I think. -- Joe 042293 18:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ari1.jpg — UE, Wallpaper image not useful in our encyclopedia. --Adnghiem501 00:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object (Keep) I uploaded this image in accordance with policy. That image states it's source and that it is public domain. There is no violation what-so-ever. Saying that it is "not useful in our encyclopedia" is Adnghiem501's POV. Tony the Marine 03:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object aka Keep Wallpaper image is still an image. The image is in good taste and is public domain. There is nothing in policy that states a wallpaper image cannot be used. Antonio Martin 03:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Object, i.e. Keep; I don't see anything wrong with using it. It's in good taste, it illustrates the subject, and it's PD. Antandrus (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. I suggest this proposal be removed immediately. -- Natalinasmpf 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep can't see anything wrong with this. why was it even nominated for deletion? Grutness...wha? 04:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this image is in good taste, is in the public domain, and illustrates a biographical article. The "unencyclopedic" claim is childish at best and I can only assume bad faith on the part of the nominator. David Cannon 04:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks fine to me. -Willmcw 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with all others. Adnghiem501 04:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. There's nothing objectionable aboutthe image itself; it's entirely suitable for illustrating the article. The page it comes from says "Copyright © AriMeyers.com" [1], and the image is a link to a larger version which says "Ari Meyers Online" and "AriMeyers.com". Why do we believe the image is public domain?-gadfium 05:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The image which is on "Ari Meyers Online" and "AriMeyers.com" are the "Free Wallpaper" versions and free wallpapers are for public use. Tony the Marine 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- The image Marine 69-71 uploaded isn't made of wallpaper, yet I found a similar image with high-resolution that might be the wallpaper: [2] -Adnghiem501 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speey Keep. It is a wallpaper image found in http://www.arimeyers.com/wallpapers.html, and its use is encyclopedic to illustrate Ari Meyers. Nomination is unjustified. --Vizcarra 09:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: What's wrong with this image?!? "Wallpaper image not useful in our encyclopedia" is a subjective term and is not enough argument to justify the deletion. – MusiCitizen 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - www.arimeyers.com is a fan site -- not the young lady's official site. Her fans are not authorized to say which images of her are in the public domain. The fan who compiled the images doesn't say where they got them from. So, we have no real idea of the original source to this picture. I contend it would be a mistake to assume it is a PD image. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The image comes from [3] and as a wallpaper or screensaver, it is assumed in good faith that that the same is public domain. Antonio Martin 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I don't see why it's not encyclopedic. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - what possible complaint can there be at this picture? - she looks goods too!Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 20:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per everyone above. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Investigate as copyright infringement -- I don't know that there's any reason to call it unencyclopedic, but there are very clear indications that this image is not public domain at all. IT's not an official site. The person who made it into wallpaper does not have any copyright to the image in the first place, so absolutely cannot declare it to be public domain on the photographer's behalf. It may be "good faith" to assume other editors are working with best intentions in mind, but it definitely is NOT good faith to assume a photo taken from a fan site is public domain, any more than assuming that some gy with a website selling copies of Microsoft Office on CDs without manuals for $10 each is legal either. So the votes above can certainly decide that it's encyclopedic and a good image, but you can't just vote to ignore copyright infringement. DreamGuy 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or investigate). As per Geo Swan and DreamGuy. It's a perfectly cromulent picture but we don't have clear proof that it's PD. FreplySpang (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold it, Hold it Don't vote Delete because you've come to the conclusion that there is a "possible" copyright violation. I agree that it would be O.K. to investigate the possibility, however that would be a total different issue and until that is done we can't assume that there has been a violation at all and delete the image on that assumption until it is proven as such. This image was nominated becuase of "UE" (See nomination above) and not becuase of "CV". Please, let's stick to the issue involved. Tony the Marine 03:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment -- Sorry. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that we investigate the copyright status, and leave the image there, until someone traces the original source of the image, and learns what rights the original copyright holder was willing ot release. We could hire a battalian of private detectives, give them a year, and still not find the original copyright holder, or the permissions they have released. You say we can't assume there was a violation? You have that completely backwards. We can't assume that the creator of that fan site ever had authorization to release those images.
    - Note that the fan site creator slapped on copyright notices to all kinds of images on that site. But they don't claim they ever met the young lady, let alone arranged photo shoots. The only conditions where they could slap on a copyright notice are (1) if they took the photos themselves, (2) they hired the photographer, (3) they bought all the rights from the original copyright holder.
    - If the fan site creator had found images someone else took, and put in the public domain, they would not be entitled to slap on a copyright notice. Take a look at their change log. They don't say they took the pictures. They said they acquired them. While they could have meant they bought the rights, they don't sound like they are anything other than a penniless blogger who has a naive misunderstanding of what copyright means.
    - No offense, but it seems Tony the Marine is indulging in classical wishful thinking. When text is added to the wikipedia, the contributor agrees to: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."'. Tony should take a closer look at Special:Upload. Can he really assure us that he is sure the image is PD or free? He isn't claiming he is sure here. Personally I don't suspect him of knowingly placing images on the wikipedia he knew or suspected he was not authorized to upload. I suspect it was an honest mistake. -- But, what I recommend Tony do know is request removal of the image. There is a tag for that. Then Tony should go look for pictures of the young lady that really are in the public domain. Meanwhile Tony can direct wikipedia readers who really want to see what the young lady looked like to go directly to the http://www.arimeyers.com site. -- Geo Swan 07:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The original VfD was clearly done in bad faith. The image's copyright status is questionable but it is no big deal to ask the site administrators about it. From reading the page it is apparent that most of the images in that site were donated to the site by individuals and it very possible they now have ownership of some of those pictures. I don't see a reason why the site administrators couldn't verify their ownership and even provide permission to post the image on this encyclopedia. I am sure there are many pictures still on wikipedia with questionable copyright status that have not been resolved even beyond the seven days the tag allows. And that was just one random example. I would like to give it several days beyond the "seven day limit" to settle its copyright status and find a suitable replacement. --Stux 22:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Pleiades half.jpg. This image is a retouched image uploaded for aFP nomination of Image:Pleiades large.jpg. Image:Pleiades half.jpg was the promoted version, so I have uploaded it over Image:Pleiades large.jpg. Image:Pleiades half.jpg is now redundant. Raven4x4x 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Redcap (Mythological creature).gif – CV from http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Redcap.htm – Clockwork Soul 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Honda template.gif - Obsolete -- SGBailey 08:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:VFD XMPL.gif - Obsolete -- SGBailey 08:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following are blank image pages which have no link to an image on EN (note the lack of a "File history" section, but for which there is an identically named image on the Commons. The solution is (presumably) to delete the EN image description page.