This picture was uploaded here; en en:, on 21 October 2007 at 22:30 by Scole01. It was then transferred to Commons as commons:File:Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.jpg and deleted here according to WP:CSD F8. Now the picture must be deleted on Commons because France doesn't recognize freedom of panorama.
I ask for the undeletion of this picture here, so that en: can still use it. I could upload it back from Commons, but file history would be lost and the status of the picture would be very difficult to check afterwards. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is deleted on Commons because of a freedom of panorama issue, ought not that same issue preclude the file's presence on en-wiki? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Commons only allows free images, which is why it will soon be deleted from Commons. However, Wikipedia permits non-free images if they meet these criteria. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; I had no idea Commons precluded non-free fair-use images. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On en-wiki we allow non-free photos if they meet the WP:NFC criteria. Since there has never been a discussion as to whether this picture qualifies under those rules, I recommend undeletion and discussion at FfD to determine whether we should keep the image or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, on en-wiki we in at least some cases treat as free images that are PD under US copyright law, but are not free in their source countries, while commons generally does not (with the exception of images of 2-D art that is out of copyright). That rule may apply in at least some FOP cases. DES(talk) 05:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete when and only when it is figured out how the image should be tagged here. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The case is similar to that of File:Atomium 20-08-07.jpg. The picture should be tagged as {{Non-free architectural work}} and use a fair use rationale. A low-res version of the file will also have to be uploaded on top of the original file, then the older version deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal to undelete the image. However, France does not have FoP for permanently installed architectural works as the United States does, so this should be treated as non-free content under Wikipedia policy and include a fair-use rationale. The architectural work in question is not merely incidental in the photograph, so this cannot be considered free. That doesn't mean we can't have it on Wikipedia, though. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at FfD if desired. No longer meets any speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to sending it straight to FfD if a fair use claim is disputed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
MASSIVEGOOD – Restored to mainspace As the most recently deleting admin, I agree that this has thoroughly met notability standards. – Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hello everyone! I had a discussion with User:Jclemens on January 21st about the MASSIVEGOOD page being deleted User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_5 as it was a recreating of another page. I believe that I have addressed all the notability issues and that the article which is now located at User:Tomo64/MASSIVEGOOD should be finally restored properly onto Wikipedia as the project is up and running as of today.I completely agree that it was speculative to put it up two months ago and that there was only PR information on the web, but all that seems to have changed. ♪Tomo65♫ 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job article has substantially improved in sourcing--refs 2,4,5,8,10 are all good independent RS--passes N with flying colors now, there is no reason why this shouldn't be restored to mainspace. I suggest it be moved back to MassiveGood (the name under which the first AfD took place) to meet the caps usage that seems to be the most common in the sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
