< January 8	January 10 >

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's article was deleted as non-notable. Orphaned and no foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 00:55, 9 January 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free promotional image being used in Dick Grayson#Arkham series. File has a non-free usage rationale, but its claim that the it's needed for the "Illustration of a specific point within the article" does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. The image itself is not the subject of any sourced commentary within that particular section, so omitting it would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding at all in my opinion. The sentence "Robin design is an alternate costume for Tim Drake." seems to be the only sentence about the costume itself, and I don't think a non-free image is needed for the reader to understand that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2016 (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; deleted by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone was trying to upload a "new version" of a previously uploaded non-free image, but then decided to make two separate files for the same image. The new version added to "File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg" is so different from the "old version" that I do think they should be considered to be the same file. Once the non-free versions that are not being used are deleted from "Siya Ke Ram.jpg", we'll be left with two practically identical files (with even essentially the same name) which is something which is not allowed per WP:NFCC#3a. Any suggestions on what to do here? Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "File:SiyaKeRam.jpg" was previously uploaded as File:Siya and Ram.jpg which was deleted by admin Ponyo back on December 22, 2015 per WP:G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st of ol thnku User:Marchjuly for creating a beautiful user talk page 4 me. Firstly i tried uploading new version of d title pic.the older version contains old name Maryada Purushottam Siya Ke Ram as it was announced but the serial is released with the name Siya Ke Ram so that older version was totally wrong. Older version doesn't show the real name but i was failed to upload. So i upload it with new name. Divya Thaakur (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is either in the public domain (as stated in Special:PermanentLink/690151835) or in violation of WP:NFCC#1. Thus, the file should either be deleted or have its file information modified. Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2016 (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: remove from Barbary Coast, San Francisco. The argument boiled down to the inclusion of the image in the Barbary Coast article, and whether or not it violated WP:NFCC#8 there. Non-free images are meant to increase the readers' understanding of the topic, and this is done with the image's utilization in Terrific Street. WP:NFC#UUI exists in order to minimize the use of non-free content. In order to justify its use in other articles, its removal should be detrimental to the readers' understanding of that article, which it ultimately is not. — ξ ^xplicit 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFC#UUI §6 in Barbary Coast, San Francisco. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The complaining criteria, WP:NFC#UUI §6 , states that "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)"

The use of this previously discussed and approved image [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_February_27#File:Dancehalls_of_Pacific_Street_Facing_West_San_Francisco_1909_SFLibraryCode_AAB-6692_CropA.jpg ] is not about "an article passage about the image", but is merely the use of a reduced-size image as it pertains to a topic within the article, in order to better engage and illuminate the reader. The phrase "about the image" is not satisfied, and that is why this proposal for deletion is misapplied, and threatens the quality of an article which hardly has any photos to begin with.

In support of keeping the image, its use displays "Contextual Significance" in accordance to WP:NFCC#8 which 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." Below are some examples of Contextual Significance for this photo,

Within the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article, the photo helps the readers' understanding of a forgotten historic era, and also functions to hook the readers' interest in a subtopic -- to encourage them to further read its satellite article, Terrific Street.
Within the Terrific Street article, the photo is paired with another current-day photo of similar viewpoint, in order to contrast the change in buildings and a neighborhood over the course of a century.

Also in support of keeping the photo, WP:NFCC#1 states, "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." There is no free equivalent photo that presents Pacific Street from the view necessary for comparison in the Terrific Street article.

Both instances of the photo serve to better inform and engage the reader in giving a more vivid experience. To needlessly delete any current use of this photo would be detrimental to Wikipedia, and not serve any real purpose.James Carroll (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you are linking to is about whether the file is unfree or not. Since we have no evidence that it is free, we have to assume that the file is unfree. In Barbary Coast, San Francisco#After the 1906 earthquake, the image is merely used to illustrate a passage about something, but per WP:NFC#UUI §6, it is sufficient to link to the article about that thing - the non-free image is not to be repeated. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the text of WP:NFC#UUI §6 here, as you read it? I am having trouble telling what you are referring to. James Carroll (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above: In Barbary Coast, San Francisco#After the 1906 earthquake, the image is merely used to illustrate a passage about something, but per WP:NFC#UUI §6, it is sufficient to link to the article about that thing - the non-free image is not to be repeated. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not given me an accurate quote, concerning the text for WP:NFC#UUI §6. Again I ask, is this the text of WP:NFC#UUI §6, that you are referring to, "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)"James Carroll (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not given me an accurate quote - incorrect, see above. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image) - exactly. The venue can be described by linking to the article about the venue, instead of including an image of it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James commented on my talk page since I was involved in the previous discussion, but I will like to make sure that James is aware that this is not about outright deletion of the file, simply its use of the file on Barbary Coast. The use in Terrific Street appears fully valid and the image is not going to be deleted, but Stefan is properly pointing out that we can link to Terrific Street on the Barbary Coast article instead of reusing the picture as to minimize the use of non-free (per WP:NFCC#3a). --MASEM (t) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be about "absolute deletion", but the photo would be permanently removed from the Barbary Coast article where it has provided a valuable function there for nearly 2 years -- to encourage the reader's appetite to go on and read the Terrific Street satellite article. Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words. However within the Terrific Street article the photo is much smaller, at the very bottom of the article for a specialized purpose, and does not have as commanding presence as it does in the Barbary Coast article. WP:NFCC#3a states, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In this case it seems that one instance will NOT "convey equivalent significant information." Maybe what we should be looking at is the big picture -- what is best for a specific article(s). And isn't that what WP:NFCC#8 says, that photo-removal should be halted "if the photo's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." James Carroll (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of arguments to avoid in these types of discussions - it doesn't matter how long its been there, since there is much more non-free use than there are admins that watch for it so we will miss them. As for the NFCC#3a, this extended to reusing the same media across multiple articles, and why we ask for each use to be justified rather than just the media file. As for NFCC#8, recognize it is a two-pronged test, the test for increasing understanding, and the test for deterring understanding. It is nearly always the case that a file can be shown to significiant increase the understanding just by being present, but if the image or aspect of the image is not discussed in significant detail and just used for decoration, it fails the deterring understanding. Further, with a like to the article where the image in context is clearly meeting all NFCC tests is a "free-er" solution than reusing the image. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I have to ask if you have yet viewed the use of the photo within its context in the two articles, Terrific Street and Barbary Coast, San Francisco? Does it really seem like there is an excessive use of photos? Also, since the photo is over a century old and its use in Wikipedia has been given written permission (form is at right) by the San Francisco Public Library, that there is not likely to be any copyright violation and in essence the photo is virtually in the public domain ( in reality it is more 'free' than 'non-free' ).

Because the photo serves specifics purposes to "increase understanding" and are not "just used for decoration," it is true that NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 are satisfied for the following reasons,

Within the Terrific Street article the image itself is discussed, as it is paired with another photo from the present which is taken from the same viewpoint. And that comparison is discussed in the opposing text which is titled "Pacific Street Today," and describes the changes that time has brought to the nightclubs' buildings (shown in photo) over the past century.
Within the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article the contents (nightclubs shown) of the image are discussed -- that is the entertainment-scene and nightclubs shown in the photo are discussed, and those nightclubs are still further discussed in detail within the satellite article (Terrific Street), which is linked via the Main Article Command from that paragraph. To remove that photo from the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article would ultimately end up "deterring understanding" of the Barbary Coast’s Terrific Street entertainment-scene era, because without that dramatic photo some readers might miss the opportunity to pursue the small linking-text of the Main Article Command, and not bother to read the more detailed satellite article (Terrific Street), which gives greater focus and insight into this lost entertainment-scene era which occurred during the birth of jazz music within America.

I made a serious investment of my time in creating the Terrific Street article, dramatically expanding and sourcing the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article, and sought written permission from the San Francisco Public Library for these photos, because this is an exciting piece of San Francisco's history that deserves increased focus and understanding. Nothing that I did was "just for decoration," but was all part of a dedicated strategy to bring only the best possible form for these two special articles. James Carroll (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The document you are displaying in this section is not from the copyright holder and is therefore useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other Photo-Records from San Francisco's Public Library photo archive, you would see that they make an attempt to identify a copyright holder, and print that information upon the file record for that photo. The fact the the File Record for this photo lists no copyright holder and even states that the photographer is unknown, very strongly suggests that there is no copyright holder. If you open up the two links below for the SF Library's records below, you will see two different photos and their respective Photo-Records. The first Record identifies a copyright holder for a photo (see "Restrictions Apply" ) and identifies an 'Author' (Alan J. Canterbury). But the other photo record (for the photo discussed here) does NOT list a copyright holder, does NOT list an 'Author', and says that permissions are resolved by the San Francisco's Public Library.

A photo record WITH a copyright claim, http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1008421

And the currently discussed photo with NO copyright claim, http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1011628

And we have secured that written permission to use that photo with the form at the right. James Carroll (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the copyright holder is anonymous or unknown has no effect on whether the copyright holder exists. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree that we can not avail ourselves of a public domain or licensed use basis, given that we do not know when the photo was first published. Just to supply a little more context in regard to the library's permission, the library is not in a position to grant a license from the unknown holder of the original copyright. What they are granting is a license to any copyright they have in the scanned reproduction that they have uploaded online. As Wikipedia follows the reasoning of Bridgeman v. Corel, we consider such scans to be faithful reproductions of two dimensional images that fail to evince the creativity/originality required for copyright protection. That said, I think approaching the library for permission was both diligent and admirable. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with User:James Carroll's arguments above. The Barbary Coast, San Francisco article is so poorly illustrated that this image serves an important role here. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that the policy arguments regarding WP:NFC#UUI §6 expressed above are correct as the policy stands now. However, while it is theoretically possible that our use could have market impact upon the unknown holder of a copyright in a 1909 photograph that is hosted on a library's website, the possibility that a second fair use of the image in a highly relevant article where it would serve an educational purpose, as User:James Carroll has so ably argued, would have additional market impact is vanishingly small. This is an example where we might benefit from a 'slightly less minimal' use approach where such usage meets all the other non-free criteria. This is not to suggest that the image should be used in every marginally related article. I might recommend keeping this particular use and working on some more general rule incorporating lack of likelihood of market harm and some small number of additional uses. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about WP:NFCC#8, not WP:NFCC#2. The file's compliance with WP:NFCC#2 is unknown since the library doesn't know where the picture comes from. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I did see WP:NFC#UUI §6 as a bright line rule emanating from the more general policy criterion of WP:NFCC#8: "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", so it's good to know I'm on the right track. The point I'm trying to work toward is that I think that User:James Carroll has demonstrated that the use in this one additional article "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I would not want to say, however, that we should blithely ignore WP:NFC#UUI §6 in all such instances, as doing so could result in market impact in other cases, if not here. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC) To address MASEM's point above that if "the image or aspect of the image is not discussed in significant detail and just used for decoration, it fails the deterring understanding," I believe that the text "... an entertainment area which would be acceptable for every-day San Franciscans. Possessing a new sense of civic pride, the boosters invested heavily in reconstruction and within three months over a dozen dance halls and a dozen bars were rebuilt and operating" is both descriptive of the image and significantly informed by readers' access to the image while reading it. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The factors that I see favoring retention here are: (1) the argument that WP:NFCC#8 is met, ensuring that the picture is serving a valid educational purpose and (2) there is no evidence of a market for this 1909 photo in its original market role, minimizing any damage that hosting multiple copies might do. I do not feel competent to judge what damage bending WP:NFC#UUI §6 slightly would do to the ability of volunteers to efficiently protect the rights of copyright holders and protect Wikipedia from legal liability. I defer to the judgment of those with expertise in patrolling copyright issues. I would like to suggest that anyone who is in a position to visit the library might be able to uncover information regarding the earliest known publication date that may have not been added to the web page. There are a number of scenarios under which this photo would be in the public domain, the simplest of which to describe would be if it were published before 1923. Cornell has a handy chart from which other possibilities can be deduced. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - (1) Removing the image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article because you can still see the image in the other article. Thus, WP:NFCC#8 is not met. (2) You get it wrong. It's the burden of the person who writes the FUR to provide evidence that WP:NFCC#2 is not violated. Other users only need to show that there is no evidence that WP:NFCC#2 is met. See WP:NFCCE. But I don't understand why you're bringing up WP:NFCC#2 in the first place.

Since we don't know if or when this was first published, we have to treat the picture as copyrighted. For example, if it was first published in, say, 2010, and taken by an anonymous photographer, then the copyright expires in 2030 (120 years after the photograph was taken). Or if it was first published in 1977 (worst case), then the copyright expires in 2073 (95 years after it was first published). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question re: why I"m bringing up WP:NFCC#2, the concern can best be illustrated by a hypothetical extreme case. Let's say we allowed 100 copies of the image to be hosted in 100 articles containing paragraphs with text we agreed was critically descriptive of the image. The more copies we host, the more likely we can described as "replacing the original market role" of the photograph; i.e. using educational usage as a subterfuge. A particularly troubling downside of that could be that damages in an infringement suit can potentially be awarded on a per usage basis. On the publication issue, I agree with you, I was just trying to point out that obtaining additional information from the library, if it exists, could cure the problem. On WP:NFCC#8 being met, we just disagree but I acknowledge that you have far more experience in looking at many more cases. Thanks for making the time for a reply. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg, the image of the perpetrator of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting may no longer be necessary. Removal of the image may not affect a reader's understanding of the shooting. In fact, the perpetrator is not the main subject of the article, regardless of the length of the section about the perpetrator. George Ho (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the perpetrator is always key to a crime. I can understand not wanting to have the person committing the crime be given recognition and be immortalized, but that is not Wikipedia policy yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-free picture of a person should only be used in the article about the person. If the person doesn't have an article, then this means that the picture shouldn't be used anywhere. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. I ask anyone !voting Keep to read it carefully first, then explain how the knowledge that the perpetrator looks like this, and not like this, significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic (the shooting, not any individual), and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Hint: "the perpetrator is always key to a crime" fails to explain that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information about the suspect/defendant is a necessary component of an article regarding a criminal event. First, under allot of circumstances a subject's visual appearance in general/under specific circumstances can be essential to one's conception of that individual. This may not be necessary in fiction or a historic article, but in regards to important, current events where the conception can have influence on one's opinion on important subject matter, this is very important. It can be argued that yes its important but not important enough to meet the non-free image WP:NFCC#8. Yes in some cases that is correct, but it is in this case, where we have a picture of the suspect shortly after the crime occurred. The mental state of the suspect is one of the key components to understanding this event, seeing the facial expression of the suspect is very informative to understanding his mental state at the time and in turn to one's understanding of what happened.
A non-free picture of an individual can be essential to an article even if the article is not a broader article about that individual. Right now the colorado springs piece has seven sections, the suspect is an essential component of five of those sections - shooting, standoff and arrest, suspect, investigation and legal proceedings. In this case the suspect's picture is as essential as it would be in a specific article about the suspect. This picture should be moved to the article regarding that individual if/when that article is created.
In this case removing the head shot of the suspect shortly after the crime has occurred would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the subject of that article (the crime). Rybkovich (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree with this reasoning. No one really needs or deserves to know what the perp looks like. Parsley Man (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. As others have noted, seeing the picture does not increase a reader's understanding of the shooting, so its absence would not be detrimental to that same reader's understanding. (I didn't gain any understanding of the suspect's mental state at the time the crime was committed by seeing the picture.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2016 (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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no foreseeable use, presumably invalid public domain claim. Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2016 (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.

January 9

File:MattCarol.jpg

File:Arkham Knight Nightwing Promo.jpg

File:Siya Ke Ram.jpg

File:Paramural bodies.PNG

File:Tariq Imran Legislative Process of Law.jpg

File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg

File:Robert Dear in a mugshot.jpg

File:Thank you letter SS.jpg