Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Nadia nyce.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.

discussion
Everything stated in the "disputed" box is true; but the image does not pass our first fair use guideline. 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) 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. How can we go about creating a new, free, image? Thanks. Web Warlock 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Find an unfree image and get the author to relicence it, take a new photo or wait until someone else does. Wikipedia was not built in a day. ed g2s &bull; talk 19:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Porn star, marginal notability. Not worth bending our policies to have a pic of her. In my opinion, fair use should be avoided except for unusual and important cases. This girl ain't important. Delete the pic. Herostratus 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue whether she is notable for an article needs to be resolved at the AfD only. This discussion here should be based on the propriety of the usage of the image for an existing article rather than the hypothetical issue of the article's right to exist. As such, we start from the article being here and the assumption that it is to provide the reader with the information that gives the best idea of the article's subject. The articles about female entetainer's, particularly those whose looks play an important role in their notability (again we presume from the article existence that notability is there), so such articles being stripped of images are deprived of information that is crucial for the reader. There is no indication that the free license image that would reasonably convey the info to the reader may be obtained in this case. Random image taken in the street is unlikely to be made and would certainly not convey the info on what makes this particular person succesful (or unsuccesful) in her specialty.

So, I say keep. Again, if the subject it not notable, PROD or AfD the article. Also, Fairuse IS the policy and using Fairuse image is not bending the policies if they are used properly. --Irpen 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even keeping the notability issue separate, I can't see why someone couldn't take a photo of the person that would give the same info (what she looks like, that she's a porn star). It doesn't have to be a random photo on the street. It could be her wearing suggestive clothing at an opening or book signing or whatever. Unless she will never be photographed again in a way that would convey the same info, I still say it's replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the hypothetical possibility exists. The issue is how reasonable is to expect such a free image to be taken that would convey reasonably enough info for the article's reader. The chances are not zero but small enough to not count on them. --Irpen
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.