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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cai Xukun on stage.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ZangyPineapple (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Claim to being the copyright holder isn't credible. This image is widely distributed on the internet and at greater resolutions. For example, https://data.whicdn.com/images/318842744/large.jpg Whpq (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:13, 8 October 2018 (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.

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: relisted on 2018 October 16. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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.

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: Duplicate nom. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serapid LinkLift Patent.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Catsquisher (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

US patent is from 2002; the license directly states all patents must be published before 3-1-1989 Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:06, 8 October 2018 (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.

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 As others have noted WP:NFCC#8 requires an image to increase the understanding of the article topic, not article subtopic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elon Musk's submarine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Diego Moya (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

WP:NFCC violation on basis of 8: Contextual significance. The article and section dedicated to the submarine no longer exist. There's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk. This picture isn't necessary to the an article about Musk at all, especially when the vast majority of the content discusses the fallout resulting from his participation in the cave rescue rather than the submarine itself, which is only tangentially related to Musk. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also just noticed that the fair use rationale is "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art" which doesn't seem to be valid to me. The submarine is almost certainly not copyrighted as a work of art. It's literally just a tube from one of SpaceX's rockets. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The upload wizard described the rationale as "Other 3-dimensional creative work" (engineering are creative works, right?), which "described this item" better than the only other option (architectural work). If a more accurate template doesn't exist, I'll replace the template with a rewrite of its contents to specify a single-purpose engineering device.

  It is not accurate to say that the "vast majority of the content discusses the fallout" nor that "there's now only a single sentence describing the submarine design on Elon Musk", when in the current version the two first sections (those under titles "Tham Luang cave rescue" and "Device viability") are dedicated to physically describe the submarine and its operation. The image has in essence as much or as few contextual significance as it had when it was placed at a stand-alone article, since the content is basically the same. Diego (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You changed it to "unique historic image" but that's still the wrong one. That's for something like File:TrangBang.jpg. I also disagree with your assessment. "Device viability" just discusses commentary on how the submarine was too large to go around corners. The picture is also meaningless for understanding how the submarine works, as it's just a bunch of tubes; the text is more than sufficient. A diagram might be better for that purpose. I also dispute the need to fully understand the structure of the submarine on a page about Elon Musk. It's entirely tangential to the article topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The reliable sources that covered the design of the submarine disagree with your personal opinion on what is connected to Elon Musk. I've added several references discussing the video from which the image was taken. ^[1][2][3][4] They are certainly not equal to the coverage of File:TrangBang.jpg, but they are proof that this is one of several historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events; otherwise independent reliable sources wouldn't have used it in relation to this incident.

  By the way, we do have previous WP:Consensus that the topic of the submarine is relevant to the Elon Musk article. Diego (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This is in no way a historic image. A historic image means that the image is meaningful historically. I don't think any historians would ascribe that attribute to the image of Musk's submarine. I'm not saying that the submarine is irrelevant, just that the design of the submarine is tangential to the topic of Elon Musk, and therefore a photograph of a bunch of tubes, underwater, from a distance, is not crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk. Therefore, it fails the contextual significance requirement, in adddition to not having a valid fair use claim. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need in NFCC to have an image "crucial to a reader's understanding of Elon Musk" directly. To be contextually significant it's enough that it's crucial to the understanding of the submarine, which is a topic covered in that article by community decision. See WP:PAGEDECIDE for the relevant policy regarding topics covered as part of articles for larger topics. Diego (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I am confused by this assertion. WP:PAGEDECIDE doesn't seem relevant to whether an image should be included, whereas NFCC8 states "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". My argument is that the image provides minimal if any additional understanding at all, and that removing the image would not be detrimental to one's understanding of Elon Musk, the article topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument is that Elon Musk's submarine is the article topic at that point and section, for all purposes with regard to content guidelines, as determined by the redirect and the merge discussion.

  We can have different assessments on how relevant the image is to the coverage of the submarine in the article. You have your opinion, I have mine, plus the independent sources discussing the submarine and the video.

  I disagree with your analysis of policy, in special with your implication that moving the stand-alone article to a section changes its contextual significance. If the image is contextually significant given the text and references in the stand-alone article, that can't change merely because you move the same content and references to a different place - the local context of the image is exactly the same, only now referenced to the larger context of the host article. That's how PAGEDECIDE is relevant.

  NFCC and NFCI concern themselves with how the subject is covered in reliable sources and how the image is connected with the surrounding text. Neither care about the structure of how we distribute that content among different articles, except to avoid unneeded duplication (and get adequate FURs for needed duplication). In all cases the "article topic" in those guidelines is whatever subject is being discussed with regard to the non-free image used for illustration of that subject. Diego (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It specifically says the article topic, not the section topic. Besides, the section is about the controversy and backlash surrounding Musk's PR campaign, so it's not about the submarine itself. A more relevant image would be the tweet in which Elon Musk attacked the rescuer, or perhaps the letter in which the rescuer's lawyer says he's suing Musk. The shape/build quality or whatever of the submarine is almost entirely irrelevant to both Elon Musk as a whole and to a section that is about a controversy that Musk created when he called someone a pedophile without evidence. Do you see how the submarine is just a minor tidbit in that section? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We must be reading different articles and policies, then. The article I've seen contains five paragraphs (about half of the section) describing the way the submarine is built, and how its viability or lack thereof as a rescue device (which is what was being tested in the one-off procedure illustrated by the image) affected the perception of the controversy. And the policy literally says " There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic". Diego (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not. Two sentences describe the physical characteristics of the submarine: "Engineers at Musk's companies SpaceX and The Boring Company built the mini-submarine out of a Falcon 9 liquid oxygen transfer tube" and " its design, a five foot long, 12 inch wide sealed tube weighing about 90 pounds propelled manually by divers in the front and back". The rest of the section describes the incident itself. Word count wise, that represents about 5% of the section, and less than 1% of the article. This is absolutely not an image crucial to the understanding of Elon Musk. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is not required for the reader's understanding of the topic. Even if it were, the submarine is not a work of art. In the US, copyright does not protect the utilitarian aspect of objects and this submarine is completely utilitarian. Therefore it is replaceable fair use since anyone could take a photo of it. Or, for that matter - and I know this is a crazy idea - you could contact the company that made this thing and ASK them if they would provide us with a photo licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. (I know, that's crazy. But sometimes it works.) --B (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFCC#8 – The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (Musk), and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The image is also replaceable per B. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFCC#8 in concurrence with what B said above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The visual appearance of the submarine need not be seen in order to reasonably understand the import of the text the image illustrates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2018 (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.