Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Tommyheavenly6.JPG

Rationale addendum
In addition to the attribution and rationale provided on the image's page (I don't want to be redundant), whoever "orphaned" the image failed to notify the uploader (that would be me, of course) that there was a problem with the image. A more helpful Wikiperson told me the image had been orphaned, which was the first I have heard about it. --CJ Marsicano 01:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 
 * 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.

Image is not replaceable.
All attempts to locate a replaceable so-called "free" image for this person have been unsuccessful to date. The only way I have been able to "create" an image for this person was in using an excerpt from a promotional image in a press kit as described in the rationale.

I also dispute for the record the standard excuse from image complainants that "no image is better than a non-free image". The knee-jerk removal of properly attributed and rationaled fair use images is doing bigger harm to the reputation and quality of Wikipedia than the Foundation is willing to admit, and is causing much more disruption on this website than anyone realizes. --CJ Marsicano 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ADDED STATEMENT 05:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC): According to another editor familiar with such things, Japanese public figures (and their agencies) have what are called "personality rights" under Japanese law, which essentially states that someone taking a picture of a public figure without their consent could violate those rights, thus furthering the impossibility of finding or creating a "replaceable" free image. --CJ Marsicano


 * Japanese public figures do have "personality rights", as do figures in many other countries. However this isn't a copyright restriction. No one has attempted to contact this person to ask if she would be willing to provide a freely-licensed image, so there's no reason to think it's non-replaceable. (Non-free images are assumed to be replaceable unless evidence is presented to show otherwise. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Then why don't YOU try contacting her to see if she has a freely-licensed image? Get out of your little dreamland already! Once again, the bad legal advice that Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation received (was that "free". too?) causes damage to another Wikipedia article as well as more disruption to Wikipeida and the people who truly contribute to it. Unless people start pulling their heads out of their asses, Wikipedia is going to go the way of Pets.com. --User talk:Cjmarsicano}CJ Marsicano 14:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)