Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Poroshenko.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.

free image availability
Since the subject is not a professional entetainer, how beauthiful 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 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Politicians usually do public speeches (for instance, during elections) and work on public places (by definition). This image is no different than any other unfree image of a living person in Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to find anyone making such a picture specifically because it is difficult but if you are willing to address the problem and think that everyone who tried are petty loosers, I can advise you with the list of decent hotels in Kiev where you can stay. Sorry, I cannot help you with the airfare or with other travel expences. --Irpen 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Poroshenko with all his wealth even has to make speeches to win elections. His position of wealth and politics does make him very inaccessible even for the riskiest of yellow press, not to mention a wikipedia editor looking for a freely licensed image.  This specific picture is from Poroshenko's site and although he retains copyright, it falls under the fair use promotion criteria.--Riurik (discuss) 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the fair use promotion criteria, it requires that the image not be replaceable. A good example would be if the person is dead. In this case, the person is alive, and I have seen no evidence that he is a recluse. 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) 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, as per Riurik. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:02, 29 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. Because of this person's security detail as described 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)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.