Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Australian lifeguard.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.

—Angr 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use
I have tagged this image with Replaceable fair use because the article it is used on, Lifeguard, contains 4 other freely licensed images of lifeguards and thus this image is not necessary to illustrate the article's subject. --24fan24 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although this does not necessarily illustrate the subject of a lifeguard in general, it is the only image that illustrates the "Australian Lifeguard" section of the article. Aquatics  Guard Alert 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the nationality of the lifeguard pictured really matter? --24fan24 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because if not, how would it accurately portray an Australian lifeguard? If anything, the picture should be moved down closer to where the Australia section is. Aquatics  Guard Alert 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I'd assume that this quote from the non-free content criteria page is justifiable for this image. Aquatics  Guard Alert 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Asside from the man in the image's place of birth, what makes him different from the lifeguards on commons:Category:Lifeguards? --24fan24 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say uniform, location, and rescue technique. It illustrates the uniform of a lifeguard in Australia, the typical location that you can find an Australian lifeguard at, and the type of rescue techniques they use. As a Canadian lifeguard, I can tell you that we would never rescue someone like that. Aquatics  Guard Alert 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good points. Your right the uniform and rescue technique are valuable and irreplaceable aspects of the image. I found and uploaded this picture, which is freely licensed. It satisfies both the location and uniform aspects of this image but not the rescue technique. I think my replacement is worth considering because it is possible that the rescue technique used in the current image is either outdated or invalid. Being that no exact source is given (e.g. a book or url), for all we know this image could date back to the 50s or could be some sort of joke. The lack of source info is actually grounds for deletion on its own, but I'd rather not go there. --24fan24 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your replacement is definitely worth considering. I'm only concerned about the fact that it doesn't illustrate the unique rescue technique that is being used. The image appears to come from the "Surf Life Saving Queensland" website, or an associated publication (perhaps a document). I can't be sure though, and the uploader appears to be an inactive user. I wouldn't mind locating a free-use equivalent that also includes the rescue technique. Although, I am not entirely sure if that would be possible. Something worth looking into, certainly.  Aquatics  Guard Alert 00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've located a photo gallery at the aforementioned site. It is located here, but more specifically the rescue images are here. The disclaimer is that these images can be used because they are "low resolution pictures" that can be downloaded for "personal use only". I'm not certain as to whether or not Wikipedia is considered to be commercial or not. I wouldn't think so. Aquatics  Guard Alert 00:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is considered non commercial, but currently images with a noncommercial clauses are being considered as nonfree and must be uploaded under a the fair use guidelines. I've looked through the Surf Life Saving Queensland but haven't been able to find this exact image. --24fan24 (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this image, and I'm thinking that although it doesn't portray the exact same rescue technique as the current image does, it does show a rescue technique. I'm thinking that if our current image doesn't have any sort of source that we can find, then we can come up with a fairly good fair-use rationale (no other free-use alternative). Your thoughts? Aquatics  Guard Alert 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the text on the bottom of the image is a problem and I believe removing it would be a violation of the fair use policy. I'll continue to search for an alternative. --24fan24 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only benefit to having the text on the bottom is that it clearly identifies the source. Supposing that we can't find any other image (free use or justified fair use), this is the next best option. Aquatics  Guard Alert 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the text in would really undermine the value of the image. However, be bold and upload it if you like. --24fan24 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for another alternative without the copyright text. Have you had any luck? Aquatics  Guard Alert 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a replaceable fair use image. The one that Aquatics points out looks like it was taken during training excersises. With a little work an Australian Wikipedian should be able to take another similar photo, or ask someone to freely-license an existing photo. Mak (talk)  02:07, 24 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.