File talk:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg

Non-free review

As stated at WP:FUR, the issue is the replacability of this image. Wikipedia's criterion is that a obtaining free image is not feasible, not that one currently isn't available. In general, it is not acceptable to use a non-free image to illustrate what an actor looks like. --Pak21 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, calling up the McGoff family and asking, "can I take your daughter's picture for Wikipedia?" is probably not too feasible, and since these people aren't in the Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt realm, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that someone could just take a shot of them on the streets of Hollywood or at a book signing or movie preview. That's why the image is irreplacable. Perhaps in the future this will change, but right now it is unreasonable to expect a different totally-free image to become available. VigilancePrime (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What about a photo at one on the stage shows Laurel is supposedly notable for? This sort of reason is why I have asked for a review of this. The rationale also needs updating to explain why it is not possible to obtain a free image. --Pak21 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

But the image is being used to show what she looked like on the show, not what she looks like in general. Pictures from Kid Nation of the kids are irreplaceable by free ones. Doesn't that make a difference? Ospinad 14:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important that we use an image of her from Kid Nation rather than a free image of her from elsewhere? Unless of course she's notable only for being in the show... --Pak21 18:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how her notability has anything to do with the picture. She doesn't have her own article anymore so her notabilty, and whether she has any outside the show, is irrelevent. For example, Dakota Fanning has plenty of notability outside of her performance in War of the Worlds, yet a picture of her from that movie is still allowed in her article. The fact that it was uploaded 2 years ago and her page is a very high traffic article makes it reasonable to assume that this picture hasn't just "slipped by" the many admins. and deletionists patrolling Wikipedia. And even if Laurel wasn't notable outside the show, I don't understand why that is such a big deal. I don't remember reading anywhere that a person needs to aquire enough notability in at least TWO separate things for them to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Like I said in the deletion discussion, if you ignore the fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States then would he still have enough notability "left over" to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Is there even a point in asking that question? Anyway, that argument is not the issue here anyway.

The reason why it's important to use images of the children from the show is because, well basically, this is an article about the children from the show. As VigilancePrime said in his fair use summary "with 40 participants, differentiation between people through the use of images is significant and reasonable." If a picture of them from somewhere else is used, such as from a play that Laurel may have been in, then it wouldn't fulfill that purpose as well as a picture of her from the show. Ospinad 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag at this point. Considering how long it's been tagged, it should have been reviewed by this point. MOREOVER, though, by this time an image could not be created because she has aged since her most notable appearance. Because of this, the image is now irreplacable (unless she later on becomes even more famous... you never know!). VigilancePrime (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comment made at WP:FUR#29 November 2007. I will re-add the tag until this is resolved. --Pak21 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I had been unaware of that page and thus that any sort of review was still taking place. Thanks for pointing it out. I made a brief comment there to redirect users to the very long explanations here. VigilancePrime (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference

• NFCC#1 states: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

This image satisfies this rule because:

1. The same encyclopedic purpose would not be served by a modern, today image of Laurel McGoff, as she has aged and grown since the time of primary notability.
2. Ask, can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect? No it cannot. Any new image would not serve to depict this person in the same age, appearance, or situation.
3. Ask, can this image's content be adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all? No it cannot. The description of a 5' tall, 12-y/o redhead with green eyes from Massachusstes is not enough (though in the text). Simply stated, the image is necessary for identificaiton and illustration of said person.

Furthermore, it could be very truly stated that, as a participant in a reality series, Laurel McGoff and others are not only the actors or actresses, but also the characters. With this reasoning (that of characters in a television series or film), fair-use standards are less stringent (even though this image meets the actor/actress standards, narrowly, in this case regardless). —Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilancePrime (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)