Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Leonid Chernovetskyi.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.

Explanation
Since the subject is not a professional entetainer, how beautiful he looks on the image is not critical and an amateur image could suffice. However, this multimillioner-politician is exceptionally well-guarded by bodyguards and someone popping up in front of him aiming at him with the camera might get into big trouble. As such, this image is usable with the customary aknowledgement to the source. --Irpen 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Same argument (and refurtation) as here: Image talk:Poroshenko.jpg --Abu Badali 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a promo picture, and falls under fair use. Aside from making the material freely available to everyone, wikipedia also strives to provide quality information to its readers.  This picture significantly contributes to the article.  It is only used for the article about Chernovetskyi.  No other image is currently available which would do the same job in portraying the subject, and it is not at all easy to get a picture of this guy and then freely license it.--Riurik (discuss) 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Quadell copy/pastes his challenges instead of discussing each image on the merit and uses a disparaging to opponents edit summaries as well (shows user's interest in actual discussion and good faith, doesn't it?) I will also give a previously preparred responce.

First, the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists with no input from other Wikipedians. Second, even the current policy if interpreted in good faith does not forbid the image. My point exactly is that it is impossible to create a free image that would reasonably replace the current one because we are talking about the entetainer whose looks played an important role in her career and affect her fan-base. If a professional quality publicity image is replaced by a amateur image taken in the street, the article would be deprived of too much of its usefulness as the replacement amateur image would not in any reasonable way illustrate what the article is all about.

Generally, the problem is two-fold. How reasonable amount of effort would it take to get a replacement image and how reasonable is to expect that the image taken within a reasonable effort would reasonably provide the same adequate information to the reader? The word reasonable is defining here.

To the first question the answer is it depends. Taking an image of a notable building or church located in an area that we expect to be frequented by Wikipedia editors is withing a reasonable effort. At the same time taking an image of the top of Everest or of the back side of the Moon is in principle possible (Pay $$$ to Roskosmos and they will take you to space). These are two extreme case where it is easy to judge whether a free picture could reasonably be created. There are lots of territory between them and each case should be judged my its own merit. How likely is for a Wikipedian with a Camera to meet a particular person in conditions where one can make a good enough photoshot (note the words "good enough"). Suppose the person is accessible, like the subject is a regular college professor who walk in his university every day. Quite another case is when the subject lives quite an exclusive life (and not necessarily secluded one). Chances of meeting such person in conditions that may produce a reasonably acceptable photo are very unlikely.

Second question is how well would such a picture, if taken, illustrate the article. As explained above (and judging from Quadell's post I have no idea whether s/he read the discusion) it is unlikely to be able to obtain a good enough closeup.

Of course getting the image subjects releasing their images for free would be the best solution. The proposal of organizing such campaign has been cleverly floated at Chowbok's RfC. Perhaps we will start getting more such approvals if this becomes an organized effort. However, for the cases where no such image is available, the fair use publicity images are irreplaceable. If Quadell can find or obtain an image he suggests as a replacement, I would be happy to study it and opine on whether such image would convey the adequate info to a reader. --Irpen 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What disparaging edit summaries? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.