Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:K-dee.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.

Below discussion moved from.

Image:K-dee.jpg
Please read the fair use template before nominating the media to speedy deletion. Thank you. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact he is no longer performing isn't really relevant. He is still alive so it's not unreasonable to suppose a free image will become availiable. Polly (Parrot) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll deal with this later. Got to go. Tasc0 It's a zero! 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FU: Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.
 * "That reasonably can be replaced". Certainly, in this case, the image can't be reasonably replaced by a free one. The artist has been inactive for more than 10 years. You honestly think a free image can be created? I kindly ask you to remove the speedy deletion tag. Thank you. Tasc0 It's a zero! 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not like he's become a recluse, he's still very much out and about, so yes I think a free image could well become availiable. When it comes to fair use images for living people I interpret the policy rather strictly, others are less strict. So I've added a link to this coversation to the image page, so that it can be viewed by the closing admin. Polly (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 16:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now. You tagged it with a script seconds after the image was uploaded. I hope you don't expect me to believe you tagged the image because you "interpret" the policy in a more strict way. Since when you can choose how to understand certain guidelines and policies? I don't see how that makes any sence. <b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> <sup style="color:#002BB8;">It's a zero! 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the image is irreplaceable as it would need to be in order to be acceptable on a BLP article. It all depends on how you interpret irreplacable. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you interpret the word reasonably? This image can't be reasonably replaced. What you are telling about how a free image can be created... it is not reasonable. <b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> <sup style="color:#002BB8;">It's a zero! 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's alive, he's still active on the music scene albeit not performing, he's young not likely to expire soon, though with gansta rappers you never know. So yes I think it reasonable that a free image will become availiable. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He stopped being active in the music scene. If a free image, oddly, is created, I'm willing to take down the non-free one. <b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> <sup style="color:#002BB8;">It's a zero! 23:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A free image almost always takes precedence over a non-free one on a BLP article. The trouble is once you start making exceptions for some BLP's it's the slippery slope effect and before you know it every BLP without an image will get a fair use image added. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad, but currently it would be against policy and I can't see why this fairly mediocre gansta rapper should be an exception. <b style="color:green;">Polly</b> (<b style="color:red;">Parrot</b>) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability issues aside, has he officially retired or simply not made an appearance for years? If he isn't officially retired, it should be replaceable fair use. I know he hasn't made a public appearance for years, but Wikipedia doesn't work on deadlines. Spellcast (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the artist did not make an "official" retirement. But, the last time he was heard was in 1998 (that's 10 years from now). The policy cleary says that if a copyrighted image can reasonably be replaced by a free one, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Can we please define whats "reasonable" in this case?
 * Ten years of inactivity does not sound reasonable when it comes to create a free image. <b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> <sup style="color:#002BB8;">It's a zero! 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good argument for a nonfree pic being used. It might be a good idea to bring this up at Fair use review. Spellcast (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll have to do that if the image gets deleted. <b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> <sup style="color:#002BB8;">It's a zero! 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this image still exists and could be photographed, and that photograph could be freely licensed. Therefore this image is "replaceable", and fails the first test of our non-free content policy. That the artist is not active does make it harder to create such an image, but it is definitely possible. See also * Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy #3. -- Rettetast (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'