The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. I don't know anything about Prem Rawat, and consider myself to be uninvolved. There are a lot of arguments that have been brought up on both the "keep" and "delete" sides of the debate. In addition to the fair use complaint, we have arguments that the image violates BLP, that it should be kept because it demonstrates that the guy is a complete hypocrite, that it should be deleted because he is actually a saint, that it should be kept because I can't afford a helicopter, that it should be deleted because I could build a helicopter, and so on. Most of this debate misses the point. This is a copyrighted image, and Wikipedia's content policies require that fair use of a copyrighted actually be fair. "I really want to use it" is not an adequate rationale for fair use. Evaluating fair use is a question of balance. The most important issue here is that this article is entitled Prem Rawat, not Prem Rawat's Property. In other words, the image does not illustrate the topic of the article. That simple fact means that we should be more stringent when evaluating the other fair use criteria, such as replaceability. If an image of this house is of such central importance to the article that it must be present, then the editors should find or create an image with a license that is freely usable by Wikipedia in accordance with our policies. Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prem Rawat's Property.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Onefinalstep (notify | contribs).

• DeleteThis is a screenshot from Google Earth. There is no way that it can qualify for fair use as (1) you don't need to see a picture of his home to understand an article about him, (2) the US government makes satellite photos and it should be possible to find one from the US government (thus PD), (3) even if you can't find a US government photo, this is an existing building and thus someone could take a photo of it with a camera. This is a flagrant violation of our fair use policy. -- B (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And it's just used for decoration too.. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say this? If the photograph had no relevant point to the article, then why are the followers of Prem on Wikipedia in such an uproar over its display. It is clear that the photograph highlights hypocrisy from Prem. He preaches one thing and does the exact opposite. I would argue that most level headed people look with extreem suspicion at religious leaders who live this type of life. Just take Tammy Baker, or Miscavige for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 05:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to B's first point, I found it very enlightening to see where PR lives. In this case, a picture truly is worth a thousand words, and I'm not sure we need to add that much more to this article. As to B's second point, if they think there's a PD image available, why not help everyone out and produce it? The image had a definite effect on my understanding of the article, and after viewing it, I can see why the pro-PR editors want very much to keep it out of the article. I would vote to keep it in. Maelefique (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no fair use justification for using this image anywhere. We're not even pretending to use it for critical commentary on Google's service. We're claiming fair use merely because they have a photo that we like and we don't feel like paying them royalties. Regardless of replaceability, it doesn't qualify for fair use and if Google sent us a cease and desist, we would have no choice but to comply. As for where to find something free, http://www.usgs.gov/ has a lot of PD satellite imagery, mostly of US locations. If this person lives in India, I have no idea what they would have of there, but it's worth a look. But even if you can't find it there, we don't use a non-free image merely because we can't find a free one by googling for it. The building exists now. A Wikipedian who really wants to could take a photograph of it and publish it here. We don't have to rely on a non-free image. --B (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an absolutely clear fair use justification. The photo is being used for educational purposes. Also, Wikipedia is not using the photograph in a commercial way. Even if we didn't have this justification (which is sound), Google's policy on allowing the use of its Google Earth photographs allows Wikipedia to display them. The photo is extremely well suited for the criticism portion of this article. It displays the wealthy lifestyle that Prem leads while he preaches that his followers should do much different. The photograph should stay up. Onefinalstep (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has commercial downstream uses and we do not accept images licensed for non-commercial use only unless we could use them under a claim of fair use even without permission. The photo may be useful. It may be nice to have. But really, all we're doing is stealing some guy's photo and shouting "fair use" so we (or, in this case, our downstream uses) can avoid paying license fees. By your logic, anything from any source that we care to use without paying license fees would qualify, after all, in every case, it would be for educational/non-commercial purposes. But that just isn't correct. Wikipedia has a purpose of producing content that can be freely redistributed. We do not accept images with restrictive licensing schemes because those are incompatible with the goal of producing free content.--B (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is fair use justification, you claim that a Wikipedian could take a picture himself. There are several problems with this, first of all that would make the Wikipedian in question a primary source with original research, and while images have enjoyed a " a broad exception from this policy" for articles, I don't believe that you can honestly tell me that some of the editors here who have already removed far less contentious content would not hesitate to argue that this image should NOT be exempted for some reason, and proceed to remove it on those grounds. Secondly, if you have looked at the picture, or even looked at the area Via Google Earth, or any other service (I have looked on 3 different services), you would see that the estate is surrounded by a fence, and the entire area is remote, mountainous, and is secured via a security checkpoint some distance away. Ergo, it would be very very unlikely that anyone would be able to walk up and take a picture like this. I would also argue that the vast majority of Wikipedians have niether their own helicopter, nor aircraft, from which a clear overall picture of PR's estate like this could be taken. Further, even if someone was capable of walking up to the front gate of this mansion, there's no way he/she could take in all of it, given its size and layout, thusly losing the point of this image, which seems to clearly demonstrate the opulence of PR's lifestyle. And finally, as pointed out by Onefinalstep above, Google's policy allows Wikipedia to display this image, however, if Google does send a Cease and Desist I am willing to accede that they are the owner of that image, and abide by their wishes. Until then, I think the image should stay (again), clearly the controversy it is causing (see momento's last msg on his talk page where he says he is taking the image down as soon as his block is off) is a very strong indicator that this image is relevant and important.(BTW, Google's Use policy: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=21422) Maelefique (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! The reason why detractors of PR want this picture in the articel is a transparent emotional maneuvre, bluntly to arouse envy and direct hostility towards a living person. Wiki should not be a part in this. It is not educational. There is no contradiction between teachings and lifestyle, but for that you have to READ the article. For the same reason supporters dismiss the picture. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, harping on peoples’ emotional push-buttons. People should read, and not use a loaded picture instead. --Rainer P. (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rubbish. Your suggestion that detractors only want to provoke envy and hostility towards Rawat is wrong. Critics have other reasons to publish awareness about Rawat's lifestyle which are legitimate and frankly public-spirited...like wanting the article to more truthfully reflect and illustrate facts about this man and to provoke some intelligent questions. Besides, the article itself has lately been (rightly) widely accused of being a transparent maneuvre to control information about Rawat and limit criticism by followers like yourself. Maybe including this image can help redress the balance..and it's noteworthy that your pet hate enemies (so-called ex-premies) are largely not editing this article. It is now impartial people which is a good development imho. In my view it is very dishonest of followers to edit this article so 'controllingly'. I am a critical ex-follower and I now restrict my involvement to the Talk Page.

PatW (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, but it definitely serves as an irreplaceable illustration of a major criticism of the subject of the article that has received notable criticism. The only reasonable argument is that a PD alternative might exist. Does anyone know what the US government's policy on their own satellite imagery is? Those might not be in the PD at all, for security reasons. Relata refero (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the subject is a living person! There are guidelines for that.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that's strictly relevant to FU... could you flesh that out a bit?

What's FU? Fair Use? That is debatable in this case. But I assume, BLP overrules FU: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". (from WP:Biographies of living persons)--Rainer P. (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid for that to hold water, you'd have to claim it was inherently tabloid-ish to have a photo of someone's house regardless of how notable that house is. Which would be difficult to pull off. Relata refero (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, come on now, don't play naive. The ostentativly sensationalistic motive for the placement of this picture in this context should be visible to the blind. The first caption even read: "Prem Rawat's luxurious home in Malibu". Take e.g. the impact it had on user Maelefique (above): I found it very enlightening to see where PR lives. In this case, a picture truly is worth a thousand words, and I'm not sure we need to add that much more to this article. And he is an editor, even if only since yesterday. As it appears, righteous indignation over Rawat's house even motivated him to join the fray!--Rainer P. (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your remark is kind of hypocritical. You question people's motives huh? How about you question the motives of your own camp who turned the Rawat article into a self-serving 'sensationalist' puff piece about your Master? Have you taken on board that is what people have actually said about this article? To resist the inclusion of criticism and anything that illustrates this is digging yourselves into a deeper hole.PatW (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a tag saying its a fair use screenshot of software should probably be replaced, as too specific to this particular image. It is the equivalent of a copy of a historically important photograph that happens to be available through a specific photography platform. Relata refero (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless that particular picture had been an object of public debate in the context of criticism of this guy, it both constitutes WP:OR and fails to qualify as fair use. I also agree with Rainer P. above that its inclusion is a transparent POV-pushing maneuvre. And it's replaceable too, because anyone can go and make a photograph of the place, be it from the air or from the ground. Get yourself a helicopter if you must. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no opinion on the POV nature of its inclusion. It may well be the case. However, if there is a reasonable amount of material in the article about his house/houses, then it is a relevant illustration. (Perhaps you mean the inclusion of that material is transparent POV-pushing? Because this may be POV-pushing, but its a natural corollary of the material being in there in the first place.)

About this image being relevant, otherwise its OR, I am uncertain. It's an interesting point, but it doesn't quite add up somehow. I'll get back to you.

About replacement, I suppose you are correct that someone with a helicopter could conceivably have a free replacement. So from that point of view, you're quite right. So I'm leaning towards advising deletion. Relata refero (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On which page are the "Wikipedians with helicopters" listed? Because if there are not any, then the image is not re-creatable, and the argument that it can be replaced with free content seems disingenuous. From viewing the surrounding area, it is clear you cannot get any pictures of this house from the ground, given the terrain, and all the trees near the front gate, even assuming you could get that close. Rainer P. it's probably best not to make assumptions about how long someone has been editing here, even if they are using a new account, just an observation. The picture has an effect because it's one thing to say "he has a 14,000 sq ft home (I don't know the actual numbers, this is just an example), and it's quite another thing to show a picture of a home, perched on the edge of a mountain, complete with a helipad, swimming pool, and tennis court. Both have an effect, however one is more accurate. As for the sensationalist aspect, I'm not sure it applies, his house, is what it is, that's not sensationalizing. "Sensationalism: subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.", there is no style or design to this picture, it is merely a picture of an object, directly related to the subject at hand. (BTW, I edited out the duplication of all the comments someone accidentally pasted in here, no comments were removed, just un-duplicated).Maelefique (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, another observation: Why create aliases in the face of arbitration? Is the amount of righteous indignation too big for one persona? It gives the acclamation count a sense of reduced reliability. Just wondering, not assuming...--Rainer P. (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Totally verifiable. Just take the coordinates from Google Earth and compare them to the public records of property deeds. Also note that there are conflict of interest issues with the person who initially listed this image for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment', are you saying that User:B, who listed this image for deletion has COI? diff? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Um, YOU put it up for speedy delete and was declined, right before B put it up. And...if you don't know B, why are you here? Your appearance here, honestly, looks suspicious. No one even mentioned your name. Paranoid? Take a longer wikibreak, Jossi. OK? Paid time off, a vacation, something. It really helps clear up the head. I meditate, I dunno about you, stuff does wonders. Take it easy and take care. --Pax Arcane 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Pax, please stop the speculation. Your musings are quite irrelevant as to why the picture was posted on this page by B. B put it up as the result of looking into a 3RR case as an uninvolved admin. I had mentioned the photo in the 3RR warning message to the guy who got blocked. That the photo was IfD'd was advertised on a page visited/edited by Jossi. He could not have missed it. What is your problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What in the world are you talking about? I have nothing whatsoever to do with this cult. I only noticed the article when I saw it brought up at AN3. This is really just a pro forma nomination since the image is obviously unacceptable to use. It gets a five-day whining period and then it will be deleted. --B (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC) This has been resolved --B (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the picture it speaks a thousand words. It is directly relevant to the articles Criticism section (which is rightly being reinstated (after being removed by Jossi and other Rawat followers). If you remove this picture do you propose to remove the pictures that cast him in a positive POV for balance? PatW (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Wikimedia mission is to provide educational materials free of cost to everyone. This is highly educational. It lets the facts speak for themselves. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Including this picture in an article violates numerous Wiki policies. BLP = "must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Rawat has been threatened with death on an anti-Rawat forum and seeking to provide details of where he lives is unacceptable as per BLP = "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses or other contact information for living persons". NOR = the image provider says "the photograph highlights hypocrisy from Prem. He preaches one thing and does the exact opposite". This reason for inclusion is pure NOR. Violates WP:V = "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". No one has provided proof that the house is Rawat's home. One editor claims it is owned by Seva doing business as "Anacapa View Estates". etc etc. Momento (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The house is verified through the LA Times Newspaper. This fact has been given to you time and time again Momento. Now, one of the guys helping you on the article is actually arguing that the LA Times is "not credible enough" ... which to me is just ... I don't even know what to say anymore with this article. The picture give no address and does not harm Rawat. Further, the LA Times editorial board seemed to think including a picture of his home was fine for their fish wrapper when doing a story about how Prem was lobbying for expanding his overflight privilege. But you know, hey, its just the LA Times. Onefinalstep (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP for the reasons WAS listed. The picture DOES NO HARM to Rawat and I think that justification for delete is asinine in its concept. It's not a TABLOID photo either. --Pax Arcane 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow... round and round we go, regarding Momento's input... does he even read what has been written before he types? First of all, the article seems to already have been written conservatively, so cross that objection off. Secondly, I already posted the definition of sensationalism, this doesn't fit, so cross that one off. Thirdly, "titillating claims"?! Is it your claim that this is not PR's home? I am unaware of any death threat, it certainly is not mentioned in the article. And if we are to follow that suggestion, please remove the article on George W. Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in it's entirety, I'm AM sure he's received death threats, so either they both stay, or they both go, based on that criteria. Please provide more details on this supposed threat for evaluation. Regarding what some other website had to say about this picture is irrelevant, we are discussing the picture, not the context it was removed from. Maelefique (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I don't see the deep incompatibilty with the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy mentioned by B (after taking some time to scruntinously re-read every requirement of that policy). I also very much agree with WAS's rationale. The image very much helps to make the section where it is inserted understandable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What would wikipedians say if the Church of Scientology page had no mention of its business dealings throughout the world? It is so painfully obvious that this group and its leader have a massive amount of criticism leveled at it by ex-members, the press, and others, and a lot of that criticism comes from the financial situation of the leader and his businesses. Shouldn't the article reflect this? It is exhausting working on this article. Every time someone tries to add anything that is critical, there is a huge fight that goes on for days. For example: It has been well documented that Prem claimed that he was divine when he first came to the U.S., none of the editors who are protecting the article are allowing that tidbit the light of day. Don't you think that a biography should mention the fact that at one time the person who is being written about claimed to be divine? What kind of page would we have on Jim Jones if we did not mention the fact that he claimed to be a metaphysical being? Another example: Prem's family used to kiss his feet when he was a child and pray to him in plain view of the public, and in plain view of writers for Time Magazine too. The editors won't allow this fact on the article. One of the more voracious protectors, momento, simply claims that it was a "hit piece" or "tabloid beat up" to maintain his removing it. This is getting out of hand. Look, we all know what is going on with this article and it is pretty upsetting to those who have no affiliation with Prem or his group. This article has received press because of the shenanigans which are continuing. I think it is time for mediation of some sort with non pov editors who have never even seen the article. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My count as it now stands is 8 for keeping and 5 for deleting. How are these decisions usually made? Onefinalstep (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:VOTE. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If I understand this comment - the LA Times editorial board seemed to think including a picture of his home was fine for their fish wrapper when doing a story about how Prem was lobbying for expanding his overflight privilege - then the picture (or its equivalent) has already been posted in a major newspaper. That removes the OR argument and the non-notable argument as far as I'm concerned. I (personally) certainly find the image informative - I have a much better sense of the lifestyle of the subject of the article, seeing it, and PR's lifestyle is certainly relevant since his teachings have to do with how one should live one's life. We all know that movie stars and very rich businessfolks have big houses; adding an image of such to a Wikipedia article wouldn't be appropriate (though I disagree with the BLP argument if the address is on the public record), simply because per WP:NOT we don't include every minor fact about a person. But such is not the case here - the photo does add to the reader's understanding of the subject, signficantly (in my opinion). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too excited, this is a discussion about Fair Use. I cannot be used in the article for BLP reasons.Momento (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The photograph does not give the guru's address, and, from other public domain material, it is evident that the house is on a cul de sac with a guard on duty, far from the house. There is no higher ground from which a sniper could take aim at the guru. Showing the house does not endanger the guru in any way whatsoever. However, as the leader of a series of sometimes-religious-and-sometimes-not organizations, Maharaji has, at times, preached a life of poverty, chastity, obedience, meditation, satsang and service (to himself) for his followers while living with ridiculous extravagance on their donations (and his investment of those donations). The guru's hypocrisy and history of exploitation of his followers is something which has been systematically censored by the troika of Jossi, Rumiton and Momento.

Someone should also look at the Teachings of Prem Rawat. It's nothing but an advertisement for his so-called "Knowledge." Both articles should really begin with the disclaimer "Prem Rawat is a highly controversial, but historically insignificant religious leader." That would provide some balance and perspective. Wowest (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the POV and BLP aside if the source is Google, it is copyrighted. As can be seen from this link Google images have a copyright stamp on them, so the image has been altered to remove the copyright or it not from the source indicated. In either case it does not seem to meet the requirements of Fair use as the following is not true. "No free images can ever exist, and, given the nature of the work, none are likely to be released". There are other sources for image that have been pointed out by others here. Jeepday (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are looking at Google maps, many of the images on Google Earth do not have the any copyright stamp on them. Therefore this reasoning is incorrect. I can provide any number of samples if necessary. Additionally, I have already posted Google's image use license above, and it would seem to indicate that we can have free use of any Google Earth image.Maelefique (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The rights are for personal use only, commercial or book use is prohibited without permission and would no be compatible with The GFDL requires the ability to "copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially" Jeepday (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verified? Is this the edit that verifies that a Google satellite image is of the same house owned by the same person but from a satellite rather then from a road, 22 years later? "An L.A. Times article: "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1, includes a blurry photo of the house taken from a road leading to it. It doesn't look quite like the photo now in this article, but after 22 years it may have been remodeled." Additionally not only is the verification of label in question, when the initially image was up loaded history the source was given as http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm and now it is given as http://earth.google.com history. There is no verification of the source or the subject. Jeepday (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient information in reliable sources to verify that the photo correctly depicts the house in question. While other issues of Fair Use are debatable, the verifiability is not a real issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is 100% irrelevant. Unless we are using this image for critical commentary on Google's service, there is no fair use claim. It fails the first fair use criterion as it is an extant building and obviously replaceable. --B (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not free use, I believe it is a violation of Google copyright and could result in legal action against Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would seem you believe incorrectly. Please read the talk before contributing, the Google policy is linked, however, here it is again. Please indicate where this policy leads you to believe there will be legal action. Also, an aside, has there *ever* been legal action from Google towards WP's use of images that you know of? Just curious.Maelefique (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you notice the part about non-commercial use? Wikipedia does not accept images that forbid commercial reuse unless we feel that we could use them anyway without permission (IE, fair use). There are commercial downstream uses of Wikipedia content. --B (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether or not this is Prem Rawat's property is irrelevant. There is no way in hell this meets NFCC. For starters, it's from a commercial source from a company who make their money selling such images. It's clearly not iconic. It's arguably replacble as well from what I can tell the area isn't a no fly zone. Generally speaking pictures of buildings which exists are always replacable. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the LA Times article was about the rejection of an increase in the number of flights allowed by PR over the area, doesn't that seems to indicate that there is at least a restriction on flights in the area to you?Maelefique (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but does that prevent people photographing it? I doubt it. You are perfectly entitled to fly over the area. He doesn't own the airspace so he isn't allowed to fly as often as he would like but nor can he stop other people flying over the area. Also in addition from what I can tell there is absolutely no justification for extensive criticism or commentry of the house which is required per NFCC. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my point about commentary, from what I can tell this guy owns a lot of stuff. The only purpose of this image is to depict his luxurious lifestyle. But he owns enough stuff that there is no justification for this image in particular since we could just as well depict some of the other expensive stuff he owns. Perhaps an image of this house does a better job then other potential images but we don't include NFCC images simply because they are better then the free or potential free alternatives they have to be irreplacable. So the arguments for this meeting NFCC get even weaker. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me a lot of the commentry particularly the keep ones are getting sidetracked. The primary issue here is whether or not this image meets NFCC. This is not a debate about whether we should have criticism of Prem Rawat (clearly we should). Issues like sourcing and BLP do come into it but they are probably best dealt with via other avenues. Arguing to keep without explaining why you believe this meets NFCC is pointless. In particular it's dumb to say "we should keep this because people are trying to stop us criticising Prem Rawat" (that doesn't explain any of the issues) Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Nil Einne. Regardless of the issues surrounding the photo's inclusion or exclusion from the article (a matter I have no opinion on), it's clearly not an acceptable fair use photograph per WP:NFCC. We do not use fair use photos just because it might happen to be inconvenient to get a free photograph. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This is a grounding principle to maximize free content on a free encyclopedia. If people want a photo so badly... well, go and take one. Or convince an existing rights holder of said photograph to release it under a free license. This image entirely fails the irreplaceability test and so must be deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regarding If people want a photo so badly... well, go and take one. - since you're offering suggestions, how easy would it be - in your opinion - for someone to take a suitable aerial photograph? (As pointed out above - it's essentially impossible to take any kind of useful photo from the ground outside the property.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - One can hire an aerial photography service (of which there are doubtless many in the Los Angeles area), or purchase the rights to existing aerial or satellite photography. Our fair use policy does not make a distinction between photos which might be "easy" to get a free replacement of, and photos which might be "hard" to get a free replacement of. The question is only whether or not it can be replaced with a free image. If it can be (and clearly it can) then we cannot use it. FCYTravis (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Until ownership of the image can be verified and permission to use it obtained, it's use violates Wikipedia policy. There also appears to be doubt about whether or not this is the correct house. I also see that much of the argument for its retention is based on irrelevant hyperbole about cults and who owns or doesn't own the place. The image has no place in Wikipedia. It must be deleted. --Maximango (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is editor Maximango's third posting to Wikipedia other than userspace edits and an image upload; the other other two edits were to the Talk:Prem Rawat page and included the following: given the level of Mr Rawat's current activity and the enormous increase in interest in his message worldwide. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what's your point, John? - Expect to see more of me. I've taken the time I needed to familiarize myself with Wiki's rules and procedures. The training phase is over. --Maximango (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - Maelefique (talk · contribs) second posting to Wikipedia was to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to anyone who cares - this image is obviously unacceptable to use under our fair use policy. For whatever reason, we have a five day waiting period before deleting it. This isn't a vote and unless/until someone can manage to explain how this image is being used to offer critical commentary on Google Earth's service, the image is going to be deleted. --B (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The debate could go on for ever. However, the fact is that the inclusion of the image violates WP:BLP. It is really that simple. Either the policy, and it is a policy, not guidelines or suggestions, is applied or the Wikipedia policies don't have any teeth. It is not a question of who can caucus the best and get the most people to post here. The relevant section is: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Claims that the image shows opulence are clearly of the nature of a tabloid, and the article then becomes a "primary vehicle for the spreading of titillating claims about people's lives". The images has no other function in this article, and places the article in the realm of the sensationalist tabloid. Armeisen (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that argument at all and I think it's a scary road to go down - that BLP forbids us to show the home of any wealthy person. But this is all completely irrelevant - the image is from GOOGLE EARTH. Wikipedia doesn't just grab any photo off the internet that we feel like using and stick it in an article to make it look pretty. We only use images where the copyright holder explicitly licenses it to us under the GFDL or a similar license. The only exception is, in limited cases, images that we use under a claim of fair use where there is no such thing as a free alternative and not having an image would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. But for this guy's house, anyone with a camera can take a picture. With sufficient resources, someone can take an aerial photo. There might be a PD government satellite photo if someone wants to take the time to look or to ask for one with a FILO request. Contrary to what seems to be the opinion of some, there is no magic tag that lets us use any random image you find on the internet. This photo does not meet our copyright policies and is not acceptable to use. This really isn't debatable.--B (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At least three reasons for deleting this image have been proposed. I disagree with two of them. Some have asserted that the image is not verifiable but the opposite is true. Due to the presence of a heliport, and a wish to increase the number of permitted uses of it, the property has been described repeatedly in the Los Angeles Times. It is also included in several airport databases that list its exact coordinates, and even include this same photo. Another assertion is that it violates BLP. I disagree with that too. The house belongs to a public figure whose address is easily known. The property has been the subject of well-reported hearings, in which a lawyer gave details about the ownership arrangements. It's included in airport databases. This is no different than showing the residences of Bill Gates, Pope Benedict, Queen Elizabeth, and numerous other living people at the center of large followings. The third assertion is that this is a copyrighted image and that the current use does not justify claiming a "fair use" exemption. I agree which is why I support deleting the image. Instead of including the image the article can link to it as a further reference for the description of the property. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per B above ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per B. Most of this discussion is completely irrelevant to his original rationale for deletion. -- RG² 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the contrary, the guideline states that - Any properly explained reason can be used... to delete.Momento (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Will Beback above. It is a VERY close call on the fair use. I think all 10 criteria in NFCC were met, but in analyzing Fair Use, I'm not ultimately convinced that this is an iconic or historical picture (or building). On BLP and Verifiability grounds alone, I would vote to keep. It's really a question for an attorney, it's such a close call. You'd want to know the case law. Msalt (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• John Brauns' opinion, for a delete on what appears a solid basis, is voiced here: Talk:Prem Rawat#The photo (5) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm primarily asking some uninvolved admin would summarize a conclusion on this IfD, and close it. It would alleviate pressure on the Prem Rawat article, as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Maelefique. The tags on the image comply with Google's permission guidelines: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=21422 DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obviously replaceable fair use image (WP:NFCC#1), and for no other reason. — CharlotteWebb 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.