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; deleted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gurinder.S.Dhillon.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mystichumwipe (notify | contribs | uploads).

Subject of BLP... Free image could reasonably be obtained The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY. Hi T.R.A. I have tried reading up on this but fail to see what is wrong with my "fair use rationale" for this image. Could you explain to me what the problem is exactly? Or point me to an explanation. I don't really understand this: "free image could reasonably be obtained". It may well already be a Free image . This pic is quite widely used on the internet. Any help would be gratefully received. Thanks.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A "free" image is one that has been explicitly released under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. This one apparently isn't; wide availability on the internet is not a safe indicator of such a status. Replaceability means that since the subject of the photograph is still alive, it is in principle possible for somebody to go and create a new picture of him and release it as a free image. In such cases we have a policy of not resorting to non-free alternatives as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for your speedy reply. :-D The person in question has deliberately limited the availability of photos of himself to this one official picture. Therefore replacement with any other "image" is almost certainly out of the question. May I ask you, if you have the time and inclination, (:-) to read and see what is wrong with my "fair use rationale" for the picture that exists and which I have uploaded please. You can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gurinder.S.Dhillon.jpg--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't address the issue of replaceability, that's what's wrong with it. And you could only argue non-replaceability successfully if you could show that this person is so exceptionally reclusive (i.e., known to make no public appearances and no interviews, ever) that photography is impossible. Such an argument is accepted only in very exceptional, extreme cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well curiously that is almost exactly the situation here. The person is a guru who moves mostly in very circumscribed circles, i.e. predominantly among his followers and then on private properties owned by his movement. He does not give public interviews. Photography of him is very strictly forbidden and this rule is very rigourously enforced. No cameras or even mobile phones are allowed on the properties that he visits let alone in his proximity. The 'official photo itself that I have used is now perhaps a decade old and yet is only one of two portrait photographs that exisit of him that I know of. (The other photo was 'offcially' taken in 1990 and this more up-to-date photo was requested for many years before it was granted.) So he has managed to enforce the 'no photos of me' restriction very successfully. I provide a link of a person who acted as his bodyguard who admitted to the roughing up and demanding of film from a man who inadvertently took a picture that might not of even been of this guru when he was in a public place in Honolulu. It wasn't even clear if the man was a follower or even knew what he had done that was objectionable. Who would I have to convince of all of this to allow the photo I have uploaded to be used? [1] --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (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.

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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RussellSquareAerial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Etan J. Tal (notify | contribs | uploads).

Non-free Google maps screenshot. Meant to demonstrate a "coincidence" to illustrate the coincidence article (the satellite image happens to have captured an aircraft flying over a city). However, this particular coincidence is not otherwise mentioned in the article, and even if it were, it would be (a) original research and (b) unnecessary as an illustration since the fact could easily be described in text alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cool shot, but per nom, it could be easily described by text. Unnecessary use of unfree content. Rehman 11:05, 12 March 2011 (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.

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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dope live.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jijifiongos (notify | contribs | uploads).

Low-resolution image with little information. All other images uploaded by the uploader have been deleted. Karppinen (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if the licence is that unsure (for all other uploads by the user to be deleted). Rehman 11:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Uploader seems to be absent so there is no way to verify this image. "\m/" not a valid summary that passes the Image use policy requirements. As pointed out all the user other uploads have been deleted. In looking them over the reasons very from lack of licensing to copyvios to deletion discussions. Also should note most all of the summary's were garbage (i.e - cfdesvcdcd), rvgb fd ergvrewv re, and so on) Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2011 (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.

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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecu-fans-tear-down-posts.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JazonBladen (notify | contribs | uploads).

Image of ECU fans tearing down the goalposts being used under a claim of fair use. The image itself is not historically significant in any way. Nor is the event even particularly rare - goalposts used to be torn down quite a bit. Nor is it irreplaceable - there were tens of thousands of people every year at this game and according to the article, they used to tear down the goalposts every year. We certainly could have a reasonable expectation of finding someone who had a camera at one of these games and would be willing to license their photo or a photo that was published in a yearbook of one of the two schools without a copyright notice, or some such thing. B (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2011 (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.

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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slimmy at paredes de coura music festival.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salgado96 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Source says myspace, image has URL to another site. Incorrect tagging (not a promotional poster). No evidence of copyright permissions. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:20, 7 March 2011 (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.

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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susana singing at radio comercial.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salgado96 (notify | contribs | uploads).

Incorrect tagging (not a promotional poster). No evidence of copyright persmissions exist. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:25, 7 March 2011 (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.