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.

Files uploaded by Sirlanz (talk · contribs)

These photos or models don't seem legitimate "own work" images. I assumed they were downloaded from the Internet, but I can't find Google matches to show from where. These three are inconsistent with the other files from this user. Are these reasons enough for deletion?

Senator2029 06:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find them anywhere on the Internet because they are original work. I don't understand the basis for saying there is something "inconsistent" about them. sirlanz 08:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sirlanz, Do you have original photos with EXIF data? ~ Чръный человек (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe the uploader visited the set of Asia's next topmodel. With "my own work" we always have to trust uploaders, because we were not there when the pictures were taken. But since these pictures cannot be found anywhere else I do not see a reason for deletion in these cases. A lack of the Exif data on the other hand is not a good sign. --Gereon K. (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my files have all the original EXIF data. Does that mean you wish me to reupload them? Appreciate your vigilance! sirlanz 08:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the 3d picture in question has EXIF data. Since the other look like having been taken at the same event I see no need for reuploading.  Keep --Gereon K. (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you would load photos with EXIF, no one would doubted that photos are yours. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Indeed, the picture looks like taken from the internet. However, the user swears he shot them himself. In addition, he knows that he cannot spread anything wrong here without consequences. I scanned the image in the search engine and on my Facebook- and Instagram-Account. Result negative. Therefore, the legal rule applies: in dubio pro reo. Accept the photo; with a low residual risk. And, of course, in order to create confidence it would be great if the user could tell us something about himself on his user page ... Spielvogel (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I subscribe to the words of Spielvogel. Dorieo (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unless the original unmodified image is uploaded. Also we don't need the PNG. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete For me in dubio pro reo means in the first instance that personality rights should be protected. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User: Furfur Photos are not on the Internet Pv sindhu (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ Pv sindhu I'd more cautiously say that they have not been found there. “Not on the Internet” is one thing but the individual permission to publish them is another. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 05:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete OTRS (from the models) is required. Not likely an user that surrounded in Hong Kong article also photographed models, need many more information. Matthew hk (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my vote, as one of the image exif shown it was taken by a iPhone, probably some public function? But with such resolution? Matthew hk (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]