Hosta

File:USAir 427 Crash Site.jpg

It has been suggested to me that this image should be removed, as the crash site is on private property. TheSoondunceMan (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Keep not a valid reason for deletion. There's nothing copyrightable here, and privacy is a non-copyright aspect. @TheSoondunceMan: unless the "property owner/s" send an email to Wikimedia Commons requesting the image to be taken down. Without such email, there's no reason to delete this in scope and useful image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @JWilz12345: This is a very confusing response, raising several issues that did not need to be raised. Let’s get back to the point here: the crash site is on private property. So what? Only if the property owner did not consent, and the crash site was not visible to the public at the time, then we might have an issue here. @TheSoondunceMan: Were these conditions met? Brianjd (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Brianjd: the rationale of the DR by @TheSoondunceMan: is related to privacy reasons, which is not convincing. We only delete images that can be copyright violations, and there is no sculpture or public art or mural in the image (considering that U.S. has no FOP for such). For privacy reasons, however, it is recommended that the property owners send an email, because privacy is not a convincing reason to delete. Unless the image itself is out of scope. However, it is in use at w:USAir Flight 427. If the property owners insist, they should refer to Commons:Contact us/Problems. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @JWilz12345: Again, let’s try to focus on the important issue here: privacy. You say that we do not delete files for privacy reasons, but this is not true! We have two(!) proposed guidelines for courtesy deletion. Here are two examples where I opposed deletion:

      1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leica M4 with film.jpg: I could not even see any privacy issue with this file, but other users thought we should consider a courtesy deletion.
      2. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Breasts.jpg#File:Breasts.jpg 3: The file was (as far as we know) uploaded with the consent of the subject, and it was in use, but it was deleted anyway.

      Brianjd (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      • • @Brianjd: in your words, you want to say that this should be deleted for privacy reason? Then I'll let this file go. I won't comment on any more DR's where the concern is privacy. Slashing my keep input above. But I see this as a major loss as it is being used in an article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • @JWilz12345: No, I am saying that (1) the Commons community does consider privacy along with other factors when deciding whether to honour a deletion request and (2) we might need to delete this image for privacy reasons, but we need more information about the circumstances under which this image was taken and published. See my comment above addressing @TheSoondunceMan. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I visted the site to pay my respects to those who passed, when I was 18. At that time, I was under the impression that those with family onboard and those wanting to pay respects were allowed to visit the site. Over time I have talked with locals who lived in that area at the time of the crash and they said that the man who owns the property prefers no one goes onto the land. I want to remove the image to dissuade anyone from trespassing onto private property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoondunceMan (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Delete I generally do not vote to delete images that are in use. But it sounds like any image like this one would be a privacy violation. This image was taken more than 13 years after the crash, so any temporary reduction in privacy due to a newsworthy event should have ended long before this image was taken. Brianjd (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
•  Keep. First of all this is in use. I don’t think a privacy argument is solid when there are no identifiable people involved. Note also that this seems to have been taken from a road and not private property. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @IronGargoyle: It could be both. I understand that some roads are on private properties. Brianjd (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • True, but the presumption with a road is that you can freely travel upon it, barring gates or no trespassing signs. In any case, that is just an extra issue. I would still think this should be kept even if it was taken in the middle of a field. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: seems to be taken from a public road, used in Wikimedia projects.

• thanks to @Brianjd I have performed additional review. According to Google Street view there seem to be no fences or barrier to enter the road. Satellite view shows that the road seems to be free to visit too. But I have found some evidence that the land plot was acquired by the families of crash victims and they declared it a private zone. So, while the area is restricted to be visited, the image is to be deleted

--rubin16 (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]