Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:BRDM-2 Iraq.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.

Fair use
I haven't found anywhere a picture of this BRDM-2 variant which could be used under any other license. If anyone finds a picture that can be used on Wikipedia under a different license then please contact me at my talk page. Thank you. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This vehicle is currently in active use in Iraq, right? It should be possible for someone to take a photo of one of these. Remember, the first non-free content criterion requires that no free equivalent could reasonably be created. —Bkell (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as anyone will find or give away such photograph, this picture will be removed. But until then we just have to wait until someone volunteers to take a photo of this vehicle. And don't look at me because I have no wish to go to Iraq while the situation there is unstable. I don't think you can call going to Iraq to make a picture of it a reasonable creation. Until someone can find anyone who holds rights to a photograph made by him/her and wants to give it to Wikipedia or because they serve in a certain branch of US army, I think this picture should remain here under a non-free license.


 * BTW I'm pretty sure this picture was made by a member of US armed forces. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason the Wikipedia non-free policy is written the way it is, is that the goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose (see the five pillars). In the case of non-free images which we can reasonably expect to be replaceable by a free image, it is better not to have an image at all rather than to have a non-free image, because an article without an image does more to encourage the creation of a free image. Besides, the BRDM-2 article has 26 images already; there is not a pressing need to have another one (see points 3a and 8 of the non-free content criteria).
 * If you can provide some evidence that this image was made by a member of the United States armed forces (in his or her line of duty) as you say, then it should be in the public domain as a work of the United States federal government and can stay. However, guesses about who actually took the photo don't mean anything without evidence. —Bkell (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.