Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 1



File:Beetlejuice soundtrack.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; seven days have elapsed without objection to deletion. Big Dom  15:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Beetlejuice soundtrack.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Alex43223 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Non-free image that is redundant to the lead image (File:BEETLEJUICE.jpg) in the same article. The minor differences could easily be described with text alone. Fails WP:NFCC as excessive use (two images where one would do) Peripitus (Talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Mark.graduation.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 as G3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mark.graduation.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hannah.bu.bu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * No encyclopedic use. File uploaded for use with hoax article Mark DeSilca. JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The file is now orphaned. JJ98 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:R68A B train.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 ⚡ 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:R68A B train.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by The Legendary Ranger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Poor Quality The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:J train.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 ⚡ 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:J train.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by The Legendary Ranger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Poor Quality The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Culver Shuttle Remains.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. Big Dom  15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Culver Shuttle Remains.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by The Legendary Ranger ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Poor Quality The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.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. In reading through all the arguments provided, as well as viewing the two usages and reviewing WP:NFCC, the delete crowd had the stronger policy-based argument. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Slambo ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unnecessary non-free photo. We do not need to see a photo of the train to understand that it made a record-setting run.  howcheng  {chat} 18:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose deletion: With respect, that's about the silliest reason to delete a photo like this that I have ever heard. It was released as a publicity photograph to illustrate the then cutting edge train and its arrival at the Century of Progress for exactly that reason (i.e., to "illustrate the arrival of the train that made the record-setting run") and appears to have been happily doing that in both the Century of Progress and Pioneer Zephyr articles for three years with no complaints the same way the many thousands of similar publicity photographs illustrating events do in countless other WP articles. The image (and how it is used in those two articles) is certainly not "unencyclopedic", and the generic reasoning given above for deleting images -- "We do not need to see a photo of (subject and/or event illustrated) to understand (what the subject and/or event is) -- is so broad that, if accepted on its face, could be used to eliminate the majority of illustrations on Wikipedia. WP doesn't really need ANY illustrations (defined at WP's Illustration article as the " displayed visualization form presented as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that is created to elucidate or dictate sensual information (such as a story, poem or newspaper article) by providing a visual representation graphically.") in its articles as "necessary" to "understand" what is described in the text, but the project would certainly be a much poorer reference source without them. Centpacrr (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I point you to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. Alas, non-free content is subject to far more stringent rules than free content. If this were a public domain or otherwise freely licensed photo, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The article quite adequately explains how the train made its record-setting run. I fail to see how having the photo of a bunch of people and a burro standing in front of the stationary train gives the reader any greater understanding of the event in question. If you would care to explain in detail, I'm certainly willing to listen and be persuaded. Additionally, if you find that there are other such publicity photos lying about serving what appear to be purely decorative purposes, then those need to be deleted as well.  howcheng  {chat} 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still strong keep: I am puzzled by the contention that this image only serves "purely decorative purposes" in either WP article in which it appears, a view that honestly seems to me to be a real stretch. As a publicity picture, the image was also clearly originally made and distributed with the intention that it would be available to be freely reproduced. I also do not see that it in any way violates either WP:NFCC #1 (No free equivalent) or #8 (Contextual significance). There does not seem to be any known otherwise "free" equivalent, and as for contextual significance, the image: A) accurately depicts a significant event that occurred in conjunction with the subject of both articles; B) the event is described in the text of the articles, and; C) it accurately illustrates the then state-of-the-art unified multi-element train set upon its arrival at Chicago on its record breaking run. As required, the image's file page contains an adequate rationale for its use, and that use fully comports with letter and spirit of the "fair use" provisions of 17 U.S.C. §107 as well as the terms of use under which it was supplied by the Denver Public Library. ("The Denver Public Library encourages use of these materials under the fair use clause of the 1976 copyright act. All images in this collection may be used for educational, scholarly purposes and private study.") Anyone is, of course, entitled to their own personal editorial view as to this (or any other) image's relevance or value in WP, but that does not mean that it is irrelevant or valueless to anyone else. Centpacrr (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's purely decorative because it does not make any points in the article text clearer. I read the section of the article and the meaning was perfectly clear without the photo, thus it fails #1 in that the free equivalent is the text itself. As NFCC #1 says, "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If yes, then you are violation. The intention of the photo itself is completely irrelevant -- there is only free vs non-free. As for your contention that the event is described in the article, I don't see any discussion of people taking a group photo in the article (this is the event that the photo illustrates -- it does not show the train breaking any records). And even if you were to include such text, I still wouldn't need to see the photo to understand that concept that "people posed for a group photo", unless there is something about this photo in and of itself that is the subject of commentary. For example, if there was someone in the photo making an obscene gesture and there were news articles about that person making such a gesture, then the photo would be perfectly fine. Do you see the difference?  howcheng  {chat} 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The image shows the record-breaking "Zephyr" after having arrived at the Century of Progress which was a significant event at the fair and is also described in the text. This alone provides a sufficient nexus for its appropriateness, raises it above being "purely decorative", and supports the editorial judgment to use it to illustrate both articles. However the fact that this (or any) image also illustrates more visual information, such as the burro that seems to be giving Howcheng so much trouble in this case ("Sorry, but how is the burro's visual appearance important that we need to see it?"), does not also suddenly render its primary content and/or the editorial judgment to use it to illustrate an article inappropritate or unsupportable. An image's "importance" to one or more articles is an editorial judgment made by the editor who adds it (which was not me for this image), not a "Wikilegal" one. For this image, however, you have not garnered any support at all from any other editors for your personal "editorial" view that it is not sufficiently "important" to be included in one or both articles. Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Centpacrr said. That's a strange rationale if I ever heard one. Incidentally, the image is part of the Otto Perry collection, and the Denver Public Library "encourages" (their term) the fair use of the images in the collection. Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what the Denver Library says is completely irrelevant. We strictly limit the use of non-free content for simple fact that it's not free. It's the same reason that content with non-commercial-use-only licenses are treated the same as "all rights reserved" items.  howcheng  {chat} 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that the image licensing information was not as informative as it ought of been, which is of use to participants in this discussion. The image in question illustrates a unique, one-time event which was quite important in the train's history. The argument that you're making, that we do not "need" it, is an editorial judgment. Above you've cited #1 and #8 from WP:NFCC; I'm puzzled as to where you think we're getting a free image of an event which took place more than 70 years ago, inasmuch as the image depicts not just the Pioneer Zephyr but also the publicity/marketing surrounding its record-breaking run. This leads in to #8; the image is placed in an appropriate location within the article and is discussed. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the breaking of the record was unique and a one-time event, but the photo is not important to the train's history. The photo doesn't give us any visual information about breaking the record that can't adequately be explained by text. That makes it decorative and superfluous to the article.  howcheng   {chat} 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See my bulleted comment of the same date and time as this one posted above responding to Howcheng. Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The image shows an unreproducible event and it was created as a publicity photo for the train's record-setting run. I believe that the fair use claim is valid on this photo.  I have not found any other photographs of the actual burro or any of the other passengers that rode the train on that singularly notable event other than this one.  Slambo (Speak)  13:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how is the burro's visual appearance important that we need to see it? Look, for the purposes of Wikipedia by itself, we are probably well within our legal rights to use the photo. However, we have a mission and a resolution to fulfill where we need to keep non-free content to a minimum. We only use it where it's necessary. Please explain how it is necessary in this case.  howcheng  {chat} 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand that you have already conceded above that the "fair use" argument has been made to your satisfaction ("...we are probably well within our legal rights to use the photo"), I will accept that this point is now moot.


 * As for your other points:


 * A) The burro is in the image because it was a part of the event the photograph illustrates. Raising this as an argument against using the image, however, is also actually a strawman as why the organizers made a burro (or anything else) a part of their event three-quarters of a century ago is utterly immaterial. It is the event (the arrival in Chicago of a then state-of-the-art train on a record setting run at a fair promoting such "progress" in transportation and other areas) that is significant and what is being illustrated. What happened at that event is what happened. (I am assuming, of course, that you are not proposing introducing a practice of "photoshopping out" elements of images accurately illustrating what happened simply because you do not understand the reason(s) for which those elements were a part of the original event that is being illustrated. Just how "encyclopedic" do you suppose would that would be?)
 * B) As I noted above, using this particular "non-free" image in the two articles is "necessary" because there is no alternative image available to illustrate this event. That is all that is required in guideline #1 of WP:NFCC to meet this criterian.
 * C) As I also noted above, NO image is ever "necessary" (or "needed") to illustrate anything in ANY article, but that is also NOT the criteria for inserting an image on WP. The actual criteria, instead, always relate to whether or not an image is "appropriate" to illustrate something in the text of the article which clearly this one is. Once that test is met and the an image is posted and Wikilinked to, a decision to delete it (if challenged) is then strictly a matter of achieving consensus to do so, In the instant case, the consensus so far is unequivocally to retain it. The three other editors to have already posted in this thread (who together have a combined experience of over 150,000 edits) are all strongly in favor of retention. The image has also been on WP since 2007 without having been challenged as "inappropriate" by any editor. That seems to constitute broad indicia of a consensus to retain from the WP community at large as well. In addition, keeping "non-free" content "to a minimum" only means that you should try to use a free image over a "non-free" one if there are free images available of equal or better appropriateness or quality. It clearly does not mean, however, that "non-free" images either should not or cannot ever be used at all.


 * With all the above being the case, there does not appear to be any reason to support the removal of this image from either article, nor is there support to delete the image file itself. Centpacrr (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A) Discussion of whether or not it's legal to use the image is a red herring; you can't go down that track because our rules for inclusion of non-free content are intentionally stricter than what the law allows because of the principles behind the project. I believe you misunderstood me -- I did not mean to imply that because the photo has a burro in it, we should not use it. We should not use the photo because we have no commentary on the photo.
 * B) You have not understood the idea that "free equivalent" does not have to mean another photo. "Free equivalent" can also be text. Please allow me to quote NFCC #1 again: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" What is your answer to that?
 * C) I would beg to differ on this. I have never been an advocate of eliminating all non-free images. Some non-free images are indeed necessary to understand the content better. Photo manipulation has a good examination of the the darkening of O.J. Simpson's skin; without seeing the covers you don't get the impact of the change (and you can't replace it by text, either; "skin was made 20% darker" doesn't work because you'd have to know how dark he was in the first place). Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. is another good example, not to mention Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or any other article where the photo itself is the subject. If you want to talk edit counts, I have over 50K myself, with several years spent in NFCC enforcement. I do know what I'm talking about. Out of your combined 150K edits, how much of that is spent working with non-free images?
 * Keeping non-free content to a minimum doesn't mean what you think it means -- it means "don't use it unless you need it". During this whole discussion, I've asked for one thing which you and the other editors have been either unwilling or unable to do: explain why this photo is absolutely necessary. I'm open to good arguments and I've been persuaded before. Show me the money.  howcheng  {chat} 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of my edits, at least between 2006 and 2008, were spent in time-wasting arguments on noticeboards. I don't see much need to persuade you personally inasmuch as the matter will be decided by another administrator. No one has said it's absolutely necessary because no policy requires such a strict test, either in writing or intent, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. It seems to me that the only point of disagreement is #1 of NFCC, in particular the second prong of the test. You're saying the image is not absolutely necessary, a standard which it need not meet. I doubt any image, save one which is the actual subject of an article, could meet that standard. NFCC does not, could not intend such. I say that the image is an improvement over raw text and adds value to the article, value which would otherwise be lost given the lack of a free alternative to that value. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I incorporate here by reference all of my earlier comments made in postings above, and repeat that Howcheng is still asking the wrong question. As NO images are "necessary" (absolutely or otherwise) in any article, by definition there is no answer to the question "explain why this photo is absolutely necessary" for this or any other image on WP. The correct question is to explain why an image is editorially appropriate which has been fully answered above by myself and the other two editors who have commented on this issue. Also I did not mention the 150,000 combined edits (compiled over an aggregate of 17 "editing" years) of the three editors in order to compare their totals to Howcheng's or anyone else's, but only to point out that all three are experienced and knowledgeable editors with a good understanding of WP policies, guidelines, and practices. As such, their comments should be accorded considerable weight. (Two of the three are also long time admins.) My point about photo manipulation is that it is inappropriate to do so in order to change the content of an illustration before and specifically for posting it on WP, not about posting an image already manipulated by others which is posted on WP for the purpose of illustrating the fact that it already had been manipulated elsewhere for some deceptive purpose.
 * For all of these reasons, my view on the underlying issue is still "Strong keep" for both the image file, and for its retention in both articles. While I don't expect Howcheng (the editor proposing deletion) to agree with or accept that view (as is his absolute right), his position, however, has also failed to attract any support in this thread and thus has not achieved consensus to delete the image and/or remove it from either article to which it is linked. Centpacrr (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - When you go to upload a file of promotional material, the text under limited conditions warns "In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article, not merely what it depicts. The image must be not replaceable by a free content alternative that depicts the same thing". A keyphrase there is "in general". This seems to meet all the requirements for WP:NFCC except for the 10th one (the fair use rationale template should be used), and should be kept as a unique historical image given that information equivalent to the template is given.--Jorfer (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would some of you bring this discussion to a series of images originally uploaded by User talk:Lordkinbote and tagged for deletion by User:Jappalang a few days ago? Even if Jappalang is right, there has to be some way to keep these images up. DanTD (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NFCC specifically #1 and #8. Free text adequately expresses the information desired and the image does not increase the readers' understanding. Please remember, when making any claims about "historic" in a non-free content rationale, the historic photo claim is for discussion of the photo itself not the people, places, objects, or events they depict. Jay32183 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still strong keep: While the illustration in question may not "increase the understanding" of the poster of the comment immediately above, that hardly means it does not do so for others. The main purpose of the Century of Progress exposition in Chicago in 1933 and 1934 (at which the arrival of the Pioneer Zephyr is depicted in the image) was to celebrate and promote exactly this type of milestone technological breakthrough by American industry. While the poster above may not be aware of its significance, the introduction of this first diesel powered high speed streamlined train set was as big a "landmark event" in the development of intercity rail travel (eventually completely supplanting steam) as was the introduction in the 1950s of the de Havilland Comet and Boeing 707 passenger jet transports to fundamentally transforming commercial air travel. (The Zephyr was not only an extremely popular exhibit while at the Century of Progress, but it then went on a nationwide tour of more than 200 cities during which it attracted over two million visitors.) The image increases the understanding of this milestone development in rail transportation by visually illustrating this technological advance and the radical new look of the train set as it arrived at the fair to make its highly anticipated debut to the public.
 * I am puzzled by the poster's position that the image should be deleted because an "...historic photo claim is for discussion of the photo itself not the people, places, objects, or events they depict" when WP:NFCC is completely silent on this issue and does not seem to present any interpretation of its guidelines to imply any validity to this position. The image is not being used to illustrate that the image itself is an "historic photo", and no such claim is being made. What the image does illustrate is the historic subjects depicted in the image, i.e., the then groundbreaking Pioneer Zephyr and its highly touted arrival at the Century of Progress. Centpacrr (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This image is purely decorative. It does not increase anyone's understanding. You're talking a lot about the significance of the event, but why do we need to see this image. Non-free content rationales must explain why this image goes in this article, not why an image can go in an article. The historic photo comment comes from the non-free historic photo licence. The image itself is not the subject of discussion, and an image of the subject is not necessary to understanding it. Therefore, the use of this image undeniably fails WP:NFCC. Non-free content is a last resort. Jay32183 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All WP contributors are, of course, entitled to their own views about this issue such as those expressed by Jay32183 immediately above: "This image is purely decorative", "It does not increase anyone's understanding", the image is not "needed", etc.. Such conclusions are also, however, the personal opinions of individual editors as opposed to representing consensus. With the exception of users Jay32183 and Howcheng (the original proposer to delete the image), all five of the other editors who have previously commented at considerable length in this thread have so far have completely disagreed the interpretation, logic, and conclusions of the two who favor deletion and instead the five strongly support retaining this image. (Their reasons for retention are incorporated here by reference,) Among those reasons pointed out above as to whether or not an image is "needed" (or "necessary") is that this is a strawman argument. As the inclusion of images is always optional, NO image is ever needed in ANY article for ANY reason in either Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. The correct editorial test, therefore, is not "need" but is instead "appropriateness" and "relevance" to an article. The decision to place, keep, or delete a disputed image in any article(s) then becomes strictly an editorial one to be determined originally by the contributing editor, and (if later disputed) keep or deleted by consensus. In this case, that consensus is clearly to retain the image for the many reasons to do so already stated above. Centpacrr (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Liao Russell Wedding.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. Big  Dom  06:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Liao Russell Wedding.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Hongkong6868 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Non-used image which includes people who are non-notable/encyclopaedic who have asked for the photo to be deleted as per OTRS ticket 2010090110003594. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unencyclopaedic and borderline G7able. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Dixmontpostcard1.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; no evidence to suggest that the file is in the public domain. Big Dom  15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Dixmontpostcard1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Lheimel ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unused photograph without proper explanation as to why it's public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - From what little I can see of the fine print, it appears to be of a mental institution in Dixmont, Pennsylvania. DanTD (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.