Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:John Petrucci-DerekSherinian-640-1.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

It is true that an image of these two indiduals together would probably not be replaceable. It is also not necessary; there is no reason we would need an image of these two together. An image must pass FUC #1 in the same sense that it passes FUC #8; that is, it must be necessary in its irreplaceable function. --RobthTalk 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a unique image that can not be otherwise readily replaced. Tvccs 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Abu Badali 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there is likely never going to be another photograph of these two artists together, much less free Tvccs 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems to be true. But the article never event mentions Sherinian, except in the discography. The fact that the played together is not important enough to have its own section in the article (or even its own sentence!) means it's not important enough to use a non-free image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 

For the record
The fact that the mention of the Petrucci/Sherinian collaboration was only listed in the Discography is not a rationale to delete the image whatsoever, in my opinion. If I added a longer section, including a specific addition to the Dream Theater reference mentioning Sherinian, would you allow the image to remain? I think not. Should I try, and see what happens? Tvccs 05:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It would seem very silly to add an (apparently unnecessary, since there has been no need to add it up till now) section to the text of an article merely to try to justify the use of a certain image. --RobthTalk 05:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think not. I never had images treated this way before, and didn't know it was necessary to add some level af added text - so far, it hasn't seemed to matter in the case of other images that have been deleted.  I'm just trying to determine what the actual rationale is, because the image did contribute to the article in and of itself in my opinion.  Images of deceased persons regularly have an "enhances the article" rationale attached which is never questioned.  Why do living persons have a different standard?  Tvccs 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)