Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 22

< October 21	October 23 >

October 22

File:Glenelg.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: Procedural close as the image was not tagged Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low res, outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky88 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]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.

File:Bigfoot Brailey.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. Insufficient evidence that the uploader owns the copyright to this graphically altered image. — ξ ^xplicit 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously photoshopped image. Likely to be derivative of a copyrighted image. Whpq (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't say more without violating WP:OUTING, but look at the uploader's contributions and you will see that they are likely the copyright holder. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not outing if the editor has stated their real life identity themselves. Otherwise, all I can see from the editing history is that there is a likelihood of a conflict of interest. However, that does not mean that they are the copyright holder. --Whpq (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that uploaded the image should be asked if they took the picture. If they said yes, what kind of proof does there have to be? Rybkovich (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an image that is appropriate for encyclopedic use. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)d[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.

File:"Eric Joris".jpeg

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 as F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional image, dubious self-work claim FASTILY 05:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 22 October 2016 (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.

File:Blake Judd 2013.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable licence. This file was published by a municipal law enforcement agency, not the federal US gov't. I am not sure if mug shots published by Cook County are in public domain. Was uploaded in good faith. StarScream1007 ►Talk 18:22, 22 October 2016 (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.