Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robert Gillmor 2010-03-23.jpg

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.

File:Robert Gillmor 2010-03-23.jpg

DW of illustration JayCubby (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly de minims. Noting also that JayCubby has been stalking my uploads since I successfully nominated a couple of his for deletion.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, perhaps I don't have a good grasp of de minimis. Could you explain how this is clearly within the bounds of an acceptable derivative? JayCubby (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I don’t think this is de minimis. As stated in the description, this is clearly a photo of both the artist and his artwork. Unless the artist has given permission for this image, this needs to be cropped/blurred in order to keep the image. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork is already blurred - it's deliberately out of focus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I think not sufficiently out of focus. Could you either blur it further yourself, or allow me to? - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I have already said that I believe that it is fine as it stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn’t. If it is not blurred further I would urge deletion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]