Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Nigella Lawson.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 have reinitiated the replaceable fair use dispute. This woman is a living, public figure; it should be possible at some point to get a free picture of her. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I found a photo of her here. will this work? Its licensed under creative commons and Flickr tagged it as Nigella Lawson. Must be usable. here. --Jeff 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's replaceable, then replace it. That doesn't mean indiscriminately delete it. If you honestly cannot find a free alternative, then leave the image alone. While Nigella is technically a public figure, obtaining a free image of her, much less a free image of any great quality, would be prohibitively difficult. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia policy is that if a fair-use image is replaceable, it should be deleted&mdash;even if the replacement does not yet exist. For some background on this, please see User:Chowbok/Robth's RFU Explanation. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. That is not Wikipedia Policy. There is no WP Policy stating that at all. The only applicable WP policy is the one you are trying to get images deleted under is fair use rationale #1, and that has nothing to do whatsoever with pro actively deleting fairuse promotional files in use on Wikipedia. What you are quoting is haphazard interpretation. Granted it is haphazard incorrect interpretation that has Jimmy boy bob wales on your side, but as far as I'm concerned that's meaningless; lots of people disagree.--Jeff 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're sidestepping my argument; the point of that comment was that it isn't replaceable. Also, when you cite policy, please use a WP:Whatever link instead of a silly subpage. If it's not in the Wikipedia namespace, then it can't be offical policy IMHO. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That page contains several WP links, if you look at it. And I'm not "sidestepping" your argument; you've yet to present one. You just state flatly that it's "prohibitively difficult" without providing evidence or arguments why that's the case. Make an argument and I'll address it. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:IUP, WP:FUC criterion #1 and WP:FU # 8. --Oden 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.