Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 9

< April 8	April 10 >

April 9

File:Little piano keyboard.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, too small to be of encyclopedic use. B (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (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:Karthik and Raj.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo, no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:16, 9 April 2013 (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:S10C3803Redfern24021972 (820 x 560).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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image used under a claim of fair use to illustrate a section on types of train cars that were used from 1968 until 2003. Surely somewhere somehow a free image could be obtained. Were they all destroyed in 2003? Were any public domain photos taken? I would think we have a reasonable expectation of either finding one still in existence or finding someone who photographed one and asking them to donate a photo. B (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems only 4 were built. One was scrapped and two were converted to trailers in the 1980s. One remains in storage and one is preserved in a museum (whether these as driving units or trailers is unclear). In any case there is a very high likelihood of a free image being or becoming available, so delete. Kudos to user:65.92.180.137 for notifying WikiProject Trains about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete but it would depend on how accessible the surviving unit is. If it's in an unphotographable location then I don't see how it could be said to be likely that a free image could be taken. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one way to create a free photo would be to email the person who posted these photos (which they said they took in the 70s) and ask them to release them under the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. If we ask, they might say yes. Or they might say no. But if we just slap a fair use tag on it, the answer is guaranteed to be no. --B (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2013 (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:Kamala Cowell.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely related to Dean Cowell (deleted) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2013 (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:KamalG.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, dubious self-made photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (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:Kameelion.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Kameelion (musician)) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2013 (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:Singer KAMEELION on Wikipedia.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Kameelion (musician)) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2013 (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:CliveFarrington.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Kameelion (musician)) Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2013 (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:1998 Novabus LFS from the Charlotte Area Transit System, bus number 812. In this picture, it is in uptown, near the transit center..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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a bus that was used until 2012 being used under a claim of fair use. Obviously inappropriate fair use on a whole host of levels. B (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2013 (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:Flora Martirosian.png

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. See detailed closing rationale below. —Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was kept at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_December_30#File:Flora_Martirosian.png and this close was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_March_31 but an interesting point about commercial rights was been raised in the DRV that requires wider discussion. As such, here we are. As the DRV closer I am listing this in an administrative capacity and therefore take no stance on the image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no case to answer, let alone any significant new point. The image is reasonable fair use as the subject is deceased. Warden (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is commercial publicity image (as best as can be ascertained, the source website being down at present) and therefore transgresses WP:NFCC#2. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person is dead and her website seems to have died with her. Your claim that we would be trampling on a commercial offering seems to be fanciful conjecture. Warden (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the picture is now worthless since she's dead? I don't think so. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's going to pay a commercial fee just to look at this image when much the same image is readily available to view at Google and the like. To demonstrate that there was infringement of commercial value you'd have to show that the image was taken from behind a paywall and that doesn't seem to be the case. We are not offering the image for sale or reuse. We are just using it to show a person who is now history, as is common fair use. Warden (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not for the reason you said. Our practice of "he/she is dead - let's upload a fair use photo" is absurd. If a person was alive and not a recluse during the age of digital cameras, we have a reasonable expectation of receiving a free version. If there is someone marketing the works of a deceased person, we have a reasonable expectation that they might provide us with a photo to use upon request. But if we just slap a fair use tag on something, there is ZERO chance we will ever receive a free version. --B (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about any fair use image but it is our clear policy to allow such. You clearly acknowledge that is is "our practice" and provide no exceptional reason why we should change it in this case. Warden (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the clear policy is foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which says that "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose ... ." We can reasonably expect a photo of a person who was alive in the digital camera era to be uploaded. The "practice" (not "policy") of slapping a fair use on an image while the body is still warm is inconsistent with that policy. More than that, it prevents us from EVER having any chance of receiving a free version of the image. --B (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B, I have to object to this reasoning. If we aren't actually getting a stream of such free photos, then the expectation that we could get such a photo is ipso facto unreasonable. I'm willing to defend deletion on the grounds of commercial value, but if we aren't already getting free images of relatively recent dead people, then it is not reasonable to expect that, for an given person, we could get one. It's reasonable instead to expect that we won't be getting one. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy doesn't say "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file in the next couple of days". When Dr. Falwell passed away, I contacted his church, which put me in touch with someone at Liberty, who provided me a photo and GFDL permission. Suppose we had been willing to just slap a fair use tag on the same image. We never would have received a free one. If nobody even tries to contact some copyright holders - if all we do is slap a tag on something - then how can you possibly claim it's unreasonable to expect a free photo? You haven't even tried. I'm pretty sure one of my high school gym teachers said you fail at 100% of the things you don't even try. If, on the other hand, you have contacted the person's publisher (website, campaign, ministry, etc, as relevant) without success, then we can talk about fair use. Another search that should be required is flickr. I searched flickr and, though I didn't find any photos of this person, I found photos from some other person who took pictures at an event where she was present. You could email him and ask him if he has a photo of her that he would be willing to release under the GFDL (or another acceptable license). But again, declaring "she's dead, Jim" and slapping a fair use tag on something eliminates this as a possibility. --B (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is unreasonable to expect is that the free photos that might be available will be valid for the encyclopedic use of identifying that person; random free photos taken at public events are rarely good for that. When the person is alive, it's reasonable that someone knowing the Wikipedia project will in the future take the effort to get a good photo; but if such photo has not been uploaded yet, it's not reasonable to assume it exists somewhere - more so when a search has already shown that they're not common on the net. Also having a non-free image does in no way prevent someone sending a free one in the case it exists. This line of reasoning wasn't found valid neither the first time, nor the second time it was used; the discussion was relisted only because of harm on the potential commercial uses, and those can be avoided by lowering the image's resolution. Diego (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course using a photo under a claim of fair use prevents us from obtaining a free one. Who is going to bother with going through the effort if the need has already been met? --B (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If "the need" is to provide a free photo so that it can be reused, of course a fair use non-free image doesn't satisfy it. Diego (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person depicted is dead. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No possibility to take a free photo, and no evidence that one exists. Also the image is too blurry and low-res to be used in commercial settings. Diego (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two issues here: WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2. For the first one, she's dead. It doesn't matter how recently she died. What's the difference, you might ask? The prohibition on fair-use images of living people incentives users to take a photo of them and upload it under a free license. Now that she is dead, there is no such incentive. There is always a possibility that a free image may be secured, however small, but we need to set a threshold below which we can disregard it as simply impractical. Sure, the probability of AP suddenly releasing File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg under a free license is nonzero, but come on, it ain't happening. Therefore we should not reject fair use solutions when the existence of a free equivalent is merely speculative. As for the second point, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg. Since the photo has been widely disseminated (and by the artist herself no less) and was intended for publicity use, I do not believe that we are trampling on the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. B's analysis is sound, thorough, and accurately grounded in the governing WMF policy. The recent death of a public figure does not grant editors carte blanche to appropriate ~~nonpublic~~ nonfree images of the person. That is particularly true in cases like this where the subject was an active musical performer, who was regularly photographed in circumstances [1] where we regularly receive free image uploads from photographers. There are also a significant number of fan concert videos on youtube [2], making the likelihood of fan digital photos even higher than B's sound estimate (and suggesting, also, that a screenshot might also be CC-released. These circumstances create an objectively reasonable likelihood that a free image can be made available. It's also important to note that the article was created just four days after the subject's death with the nonfree image included, wiping away much of the immediate incentive to upload a free image. It's simply evading WMF policy requirements to rest a nonfree use on the purely speculative claim that this very public figure is somehow, inexplicably unlike the thousands of other public figures for whom free images have been provided. "We need a picture RIGHT NOW" does not justify making an exception to WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image currently violates WP:NFCC#10a as the indicated source is dead, although the error message suggests that this might be a temporary problem. The image is used at a lot of places on the Internet, but no website I've found tells where it originally comes from. This means that it is impossible to tell whether the image is a press image (WP:NFCC#2) or whether it is a leaked non-public image (WP:NFCC#4). The definitions for "publication" and "public display" in WP:NFCC#4 are defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101. Note that 17 U.S.C. § 106 seems to tell us that the publication or public display must be made with the consent of the copyright holder, but we have no evidence that this is the case here as the origin of the photo is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I !voted for "endorse" in the deletion review, so this might strike as weird, but as noted in the comment above, WP:NFCC#10ais being violated, and furthermore, the actual source of the photo is not known. I endorsed the closer with the assumption that the source was known, and not having participated in the original FFD. However, publishing a non-free image of unknown sourcing is prohibited, period, by law and by wikipedia policy. This file needs to be gone until such time as the actual copyright owner can be identified and listed. That said, I disagree with the views that think it is possible a free alternative to emerge: it is most likely that a non-free image will have to be used to illustrate this article, and thus, if a copyright owner is found before closing, I change my !vote to keep.--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really do not think it is the case that criminal or civil law requires listing of the copyright holder or source. Rather, without knowing who the copyright holder is, one is at risk of being sued (or of criminal prosecution). Even WP:NFCC#10a, which is WP policy and not law, only requires identification of the source and this has been provided in the current case. The information about the copyright holder, etc, is "where possible". For background see Orphan works in the United States. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, no. "Fair use", which is the legal rationale under which copyrighted works that are non-free are used in wikipedia, does indirectly require you are able to produce and identify the copyright holder or provide evidence that this work is an orphan work. Absent this positive identification, one cannot claim fair use, as one of the four legal criteria "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." that must be balance is unlikely to be determined without such a positive identification, and in US legal doctrine the inability to meet a legal test is tantamount to failing it. There are scholars and lawyers who argue as you do above - that orphaned works should be free game under fair use - but there is no jurisprudence to support this view, whereas there is plenty of jurisprudence of fair use being struck down under the view that it violated the "value" criteria. Given that, we would be going against the spirit of policy on fair use - which is basically to add a fifth, wikipedia only, criteria "does the advantages to the encyclopedia outweigh the possible legal fallout". Furthermore, if you read the article you linked to, you will realize that determining that a work is orphaned is not a trivial matter, it requires a "reasonably diligent effort" to discover and contact a copyright owner. Such effort has not been made. I ask the closing admin, however, to take into account your comment when evaluating my !vote. If the closing admin feels you are right, then my !vote is keep and vice versa. --Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your thoughtful comments. If you are right our policy statement (and the orphan works article) need to be changed. However, maybe the matter is not so clear cut as either of us are saying. In the end we only know what a court will decide when it decides it. WP disadvantages itself by having no strong system for assuring of a "diligent search" and I am sure we can agree that this is a difficulty here. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you are saying that WP:NFC or WP:NFCC is unclear or that use in accordance with any of those pages may violate the law, please initiate a discussion at WT:NFC so that the errors can be corrected. It is important that those pages do not recommend people to violate the law. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry I have not been clear. No, I do not think the law is being violated by our policy. Whether WP policy is being violated in a case such as this is, for me, a more difficult matter. However, our policy is mostly a matter to be thrashed out (within the law) and our guidelines are merely attempts towards expressing what seems consensual. The policy and guideline pages do seem unclear to me but that is no one's fault. It is the natural result of the thrashing out processes. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing rationale

Because this has been more or less a continual discussion, I am taking all of the arguments made in all three discussions into account (the original FFD, the DRV, and this FFD).

There is a clear consensus throughout all three discussions to keep the image as a case of NFCI #10, and that it is used correctly under the NFCC policy. The objections to retaining the image include assertions that it violates NFCC #1, #2, and #10a, and there was no clear consensus that the image violates any of these three criteria.

Those who mentioned NFCC #1 (including the original nominator) appear to be asserting that we must assume that a free image is "reasonably likely" to be forthcoming for any public figures who are recently deceased. Wikipedia policy establishes no such relationship between length of time since the decease and the likelihood of obtaining a free replacement; therefore, the likelihood of obtaining a free replacement is subject to the consensus at the XfD discussion. In this particular case, the discussion lead to a (somewhat weak) consensus that a free image replacement is not likely to be made available and the image therefore is an example of NFCI #10. There is no overriding consensus in the discussion to delete for violating NFCC #1.

There was only one editor who brought up NFCC #2 as grounds for deletion, and no other editors in the discussion concurred with that viewpoint, while there were several rebuttals. Therefore, there is no consensus to delete for this reason.

There were two related arguments that the images violates NFCC #10a. One of those arguments is that since the source link is dead, the image automatically fails #10a. The NFCC policy page says nothing about whether the source must be available to verify at any given time in order to keep the image, it just says a source must be provided. Extrapolating from other Wikipedia policy (WP:LINKROT and WP:V) leads me to the conclusion that a dead link does not invalidate #10a, and I am thus exercising closer's discretion in disregarding this argument.

The second argument for a violation of #10a is that since the image has no copyright holder, publisher, or copyright year listed, the image automatically fails #10a. This reasoning is based on a flawed reading of that criterion. The policy says, exactly:

"Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value." (emphasis mine)

The file meets this criterion because a source was provided. The fact that the uploader and subsequent editors have been unable to supplement the information with the original publisher, year of copyright, or copyright holder does not mean the image fails this criterion, so I am also disregarding this argument under closer's discretion.

When all of this is taken together, the consensus to keep the image remains clear, and there is no consensus in support of any of the arguments to delete. —Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2013 (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:NirmalBabaWiki.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image seems to have been copied from the website of nirmalbaba [3] and edited by up-loader. He mentions it is his own work but I doubt it because same photo appears on official website of Nirmalbaba and is therefore copyrights violation Jethwarp (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete See this edit where the uploader basically admits that he lacks proper copyright. It is a publicity image and therefore fails WP:NFCC#2. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had deleted an image before for which I didn't have the original, and Mangoe please note, the discussion you pointed at was about that previous image and I was expressing my doubt whether I held the proper copy right to that old photo following which I said I was gonna delete the same, and I did. This photo (NirmalBabaWiki.jpg) however, is a photograph of a printed photo that I possess, I have it with me, and it is given to all who attend the meetings also knows as samaagams. I have the 'ticket stub' as a proof that I did attend the meeting. I'm no expert on the ways of the Wikipedia, but if it still falls short of the expectations, please inform me before deleting it. Thanks. Ankur Surendra Verma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you, personally, are the photographer, meaning you held the camera in your hand, aimed it at the subject, and clicked the button, you are NOT the copyright holder. Merely copying something you physically possess does not make it your own. --B (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2013 (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:CBHelicopter2.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot from a movie of a helicopter used to illustrate New York Airways. There is a sentence in the prose about this helicopter, but there is nothing that showing you a screenshot communicates that can't be understood from the text. Please see WP:NFCC#8. B (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (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:BSicon AKRZo yellow.svg.png

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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, SVG version made on Commons by User:YLSS Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:33, 9 April 2013 (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:Martin Johnson Studio.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. The uploading user has not responded to query in 10 days. —Darkwind (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this photo was recently deleted because it was copyrighted Dman41689 (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The EXIF tells that the copyright holder is Dan Gillan Photography and we have no evidence that the uploader represents Dan Gillan Photography. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have left an image at the uploader's talk page asking if he is Dan Gillan and, if he is, that he forward a statement of permission to OTRS. We really need, in cases like this where there is a chance that the license is legitimate, engage the person and find out if they are indeed the copyright holder, rather than just slapping a deletion notice on it. If the answer is no, or if there is no answer, then we delete it (and his other upload from this source). If the answer is yes, then we have a nice, high quality image. If someone is uploading a variety of different images, okay, delete them, but if someone is uploading images from only one source and they claim that as their own and it's not an absurd claim (AP photos, etc), we should at least try to have a human conversation with the person. --B (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (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.