Talk:Radha Stirling

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Radha Stirling is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Radha Stirling.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC

Community Tech bot that is not a reason. The deleter assumed copyright violations falsely. This is an image that is "fair use licence" and Detained in Dubai website confirm this. Some trigger happy editor has made the ridiculous assumption that it is a copyright violation with zero reason for thinking this. How can we stop them doing this? It ruins work on Wikipedia

Why was this picture deleted? It is "fair use" licence and allowed to be used

COI

A HUGE proportion of this article has been added by multiple SPAs/IPs in its history and is promotional and falls far below wiki standards. It is due for a serious fix. I have added tags in order to hopefully curb the behaviour and notify those that it is not the balanced, fair and objective biography it should be. Rayman60 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please write on here what you believe is wrong so we can work on coming to consensus, rather than vandalising or undoing the work

Please write on here what you believe is wrong so we can work on coming to consensus, rather than vandalising or undoing the work — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatJon1 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CatJon1: Well, there was a lot of bad citations like WordPress and dailymail, along with unnecessary detail, giving a case-by-case rundown that is probably better in a separate article,and lots of inappropriate external links. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a accusations that Radha Sterling is not a lawyer as claimed. Can proof be provided or the article updated otherwise. 37.245.136.188 (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The narratives around many of the cases Radha has represented have been proven to be fabricated and grossly exaggerated to gain media attention (some of which quotes within this article) Please give the option to flag this. 37.245.136.188 (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notice at the top said> This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (January 2019) This article needs additional or more specific categories. (January 2019) So I added additional citations and categories

However, no citations are better than bad citations, so it doesn't give the false sense of being referenced. This is why I reverted, if you can, please add it back WITHOUT the deprecated sources please. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some busybody is deleting photos that the owner has given permission to use

Radhastirling.jpg Radhastirling2.jpg RadhaStirling3.jpg

All 3 have been given permission to use by the owner. Some self important power crazed person is deleting, I suppose just because they know how and want to annoy people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.63.119.106 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. One, we require images are released under a free licence. Permission to use images on Wikipedia is insufficient. No one cares if there is permission to use an image on Wikipedia, so it's not helpful to mention that and indeed it may lead to doubts over whether the image has really been released under a free licence. Two, we require release from the copyright owner. The copyright or a broadcast can be complicated but it likely belongs to whoever produced the broadcast or whoever commissioned it. For a news broadcast, this tends to be the news station it's from. The people in the broadcast are unlikely to own copyright over the broadcast including any studio or general appearance of them. (They may own the copyright to photos or documents appearing on the broadcast.) Three there's no such thing as a fair use licence. Fair use is an aspect of US law (and some other countries but US is the only one of relevance to us) which allows content to be used without a licence. However we only allow fair use content under very restrictive circumstances which doesn't generally include general depictions of living people with the possible exception of cases where they are detained or extremely reclusive. FInally if the subject wishes to release an image of themselves, I do not understand why there's any need to try and use something from a broadcast. They are free to simply take a photo of themselves, or get someone else to take it then get whoever took the photo to release it under a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s blatantly clear that you are either extremely close with the owner or are the owner acting as a third party, and therefore should be placed on notice for violating terms of neutrality. Furthermore, ad hominem attacks are not just inappropriate in this forum, but as you know, a facade of an argument - a complete distraction from the matter at hand which is policy. Misterniceguii (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here you can see that these photos all have permission to use on Wikipedia https://www.radhastirling.com/photos

STOP DELETING THEM ALL

User:CatJon1: However, they have stated that it can be used 'on WikiPedia and other reference encyclopaedias'. This likely means it falls under a No Commercial (NC) license. This means that it still cannot stay on Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually permission to use on Wikipedia and other reference encyclopaedias is in many ways worse than a non commercial licence. With a non commercial licence, if I put the photo on my personal non commercial website that's fine. Not with this licence. (Although the licence does allow a commercial encyclopaedia to use the image.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we don't give a damn about 'permission to use on Wikipedia'. We need the content to be released under an appropriate free licence.

To be clear, a free licence will allow anyone to use the image or any derivatives of the image for any purpose with only some limited restrictions (such as attribution) be it a news channel or news paper, an opponent or the UAE government, Getty Images, someone selling mugs or t-shirts with her face or someone making paintings, whatever, without having to worry about copyright. (They may still have to consider other non-copyright restrictions like publicity rights in some countries.)

Also in addition to the irrelevance of the use on wikipedia clause, many of those images are clearly not copyrighted by the subject e.g. the BBC screenshot. This calls into question any content the subject releases so frankly I'd be very reluctant to use any image released by the subject unless it's either clearly a selfie or clearly an amateur image and the photographer is identified.

It really should't be so hard for the subject to release an image they either took themselves, or to get the copyright holder to release an image they clearly took. And the subject or whoever is advising them really needs to stop trying to claim copyright which isn't theirs.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me speedy delete commons:File:RadhaStirling4.jpg? It's copied from Detained in Dubai, and does not properly follow the licensing policy. I don't know which criteria it falls under. (Note that it is no longer copyvio). Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Radha Stirling, not any individual company

Melcous deleted a lot of the article saying it should be on the "company page". Radha has many organisations and it is acceptable to give notable examples. Editors were asked to give citations. They did, then Melcous deleted them

The edit was reverted because it added external links, content from primary sources and details that are not relevant to this specific article - e.g. detailed content about one particular client. It also appears that there might be multiple editors working together here and potential conflict of interest issues. Melcous (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Radha Stirling on ITV.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]