File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg – Relist on PUF. SchmuckyTheCat raises an interesting point about the possibility that this image is actually free content. Discussion of the merits of the image is better done in an image deletion forum rather than DRV. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) The closing admin misread the debate, and counted votes regardless of how the arguments would stand against our non-free content policy. The original deletion concern was that the image failed WP:NFCC#8, since it was apparently being used to set the reader in the right emotional status instead conveying objective information. In his (overly long) argument for keeping, User:Veriss1 confirmed that the inflicting of emotional feelings was indeed the motivation for using the image in the article. His arguments mentioned "The global emotional investment into the plight and rescue of the miners" and how the image uniquely illustrates "the intense and well deserved pride that the Chilean people felt in accomplishing this near miraculous and difficult rescue operation." [emphasis mine]. User:Diego_Grez's keep vote was just a mee too over the emotional thesis by User:Veriss1. User:Lihaas's showed a failed understanding of the debate as a whole. Aparently igoring the existence of our non-free content policy, he argued the image should be kept because it "doesnt hinder the article and WP:Wikifairyies it". And continued with "Articles are not worsened but improved by images.". And in a demontration of his imperfect knowledge about how copyrights work, he also went on to say that the image "doesnt appear to be in violation of copyright as a screen capture". User:Fut.Perf. ☼ agreed the image could not be kept as long as it was non-free, and even tried to educate the voters about our policies and about copyright. In the end, the admin just decided it was a 3x2, equally pondering the policy concerns with the misinformed replies, and decided that it was an obvious keep. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable. Further, arguments were made that this is likely free. Not sure it is or isn't, but the close was within the admin's purview if he felt those arguing for keep made their case. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] There are multiple criteria and it has to meet all of them. Being irreplaceable is just one of them and isn't one of the points being disputed, so the first place of your resposne is irrelevant. If the image is in fact free then it should be listed as such, not with a fair use rationale as it continues to be listed. I can't see the argument that it's free as within a reasonable area of discretion, the argument was "I remember reading somewhere" which is an incredibly weak argument which we wouldn't entertain for anything else, nor is the fact that it was used widely (Getty image, AP etc. are used widely because of general syndication, licensing etc.). Even if the Chilean government did sponser the image for use by worldwide media, that still isn't the necessarily then same as being a free image, in much the same way that advertising images which appear everywhere aren't free. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's surely an iconic moment, but not an iconic image. --Damiens.rf 12:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just on the subject of an iconic image - if I own the rights to an iconic image, I'm one lucky git, I have something which is potentially very valuable, it would not be fair use to utilise the image in the role for which it has become iconic and therefore valuable (NFCC#3 would cover that). If anything if the image is non-free and we are using it in the same way as it's value is being derived then it's actually a very strong case that we can't use it, not a strong case that we can use it --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Can you explain what commercial application having a low-res copy of the image here will interfere with? Heck, we can't even figure out who owns the rights to the image (if anyone). Further, this is DrV, not FfD2 and that issue wasn't raised (I don't think) in the original discussion... Hobit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] It was a general comment rather than specific, in response to the rather general comment "If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable" which is presumably meant to lead to a conclusion that we then have the right to use it. Not sure what DRV not FfD2 round2 has to do with responding to your starting comment, indeed no one makes the argument about it being iconic therefore irreplaceable in the FfD, perhaps you should heed your own advice on this being DRV?. As an again general response, if I own rights to something and can sell usage of that to news agencys, encyclopedia publishers etc. to illustrate the event, then it has commercial value in that role, the resolution is an irrelevant detail. As to we can't figure out who own the rights - we can't assume because we can't work it out that it's free to use, no more than we can any of the many images I can find rolling around the internet, copyright is automatic and implicit there is no need for the holder to label it and tell us they own it, its our responsibility to make sure we aren't breeching copyright, no one elses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, closure correctly assesses consensus, even if I'd have preferred perhaps to see more participation (but Ffd is never crowded). No way it was a delete in any case. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Counting votes is not the same as assessing consensus. The later, for instance, must involve the dismissal of uninformed or policy-ignoring arguments. --Damiens.rf 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and delete. Closers of FFDs relating to non-free images are obliged to take policy into account, and a case for this passing NFCC#8 has not been made out. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] The image (as a screenshot) is a static and faithful reproduction (by CNN) of an image that was provided by the Chilean government, who provided it under a free license. It has no copyright at the source, and CNN did not create a new one in their rebroadcast. The current licensing tags are just plain wrong and we don't need to make any case under NFCC8. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) What's the evidence that the Chilean government provided the broadcast under a free license? --Damiens.rf 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] The image use terms at AP/Getty, who will provide it, but won't sell it, but don't directly link back to the Chilean governments usage terms either. Their usage terms are also for a high quality still image, not the video feed. I'm still looking for the definitive answer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Overturn and delete Unlike AFD and notability, there can never be a valid local consensus to ignore the non-free content policy - which is what this amounts to. CIreland (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Keep Evidence in the discussion pointed out the image was likely free content and no one objected to that interpretation. No other basis to delete it. Suitability to the article in question is an issue for the talk page, not DRV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Someone says the image is "likely free" and this is enough you? Ok. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] Do we have an image copyright tag "Likely free" ? This again is an issue of burden, the burden is not on the delete commenters to prove it's not free, and likely free != is free --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] The evidence in the previous discussion was the media use terms from the Chilean government, which allowed unlimited free use. Those media use terms were noncomfirmed but that is good enough for me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) No the "evidence" was seriously lacking, to paraphrase "I think I saw somewhere where it said it was free" - we wouldn't accept that as a free use permission on any other image, we expect a clear release that it is. And indeed if it ever came to a copyright infringement case we certainly wouldn't present such an argument, we'd be laughed at. Even if the chilean government did pay for it and allow new organisations to use it, that still doesn't mean it's be released on a "free" license, we don't know if there were terms on which they permitted use. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's much clearer than that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Ok the last statement I see is "I am 100% positive that the arrangement I described was in fact the case but I need help finding an accessible English language or translatable Spanish language article to unequivocally assert that my statement is true", which still boils down to some effectively anonymous person on the internet thinks it's ok. As said even if it was released by the government we still have no idea of the terms. If we want to relabel the image as "possibly free, can't find a good reference for that" instead of fair use, I severly doubt it'd survive PUI. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Based on my own research, depending on which branch of the Chilean government was responsible, it was either CC-by-2.0 or public domain. I can verify an educational/media free license from an english language press redistributor. I'm more certain if I can find the actual Chilean source it will be truly free by WP reuse standards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg – Relist on PUF. SchmuckyTheCat raises an interesting point about the possibility that this image is actually free content. Discussion of the merits of the image is better done in an image deletion forum rather than DRV. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing admin misread the debate, and counted votes regardless of how the arguments would stand against our non-free content policy. The original deletion concern was that the image failed WP:NFCC#8, since it was apparently being used to set the reader in the right emotional status instead conveying objective information.

In his (overly long) argument for keeping, User:Veriss1 confirmed that the inflicting of emotional feelings was indeed the motivation for using the image in the article. His arguments mentioned "The global emotional investment into the plight and rescue of the miners" and how the image uniquely illustrates "the intense and well deserved pride that the Chilean people felt in accomplishing this near miraculous and difficult rescue operation." [emphasis mine].

User:Diego_Grez's keep vote was just a mee too over the emotional thesis by User:Veriss1.

User:Lihaas's showed a failed understanding of the debate as a whole. Aparently igoring the existence of our non-free content policy, he argued the image should be kept because it "doesnt hinder the article and WP:Wikifairyies it". And continued with "Articles are not worsened but improved by images.". And in a demontration of his imperfect knowledge about how copyrights work, he also went on to say that the image "doesnt appear to be in violation of copyright as a screen capture".

User:Fut.Perf. ☼ agreed the image could not be kept as long as it was non-free, and even tried to educate the voters about our policies and about copyright.

In the end, the admin just decided it was a 3x2, equally pondering the policy concerns with the misinformed replies, and decided that it was an obvious keep. --Damiens.rf 18:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable. Further, arguments were made that this is likely free. Not sure it is or isn't, but the close was within the admin's purview if he felt those arguing for keep made their case. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple criteria and it has to meet all of them. Being irreplaceable is just one of them and isn't one of the points being disputed, so the first place of your resposne is irrelevant. If the image is in fact free then it should be listed as such, not with a fair use rationale as it continues to be listed. I can't see the argument that it's free as within a reasonable area of discretion, the argument was "I remember reading somewhere" which is an incredibly weak argument which we wouldn't entertain for anything else, nor is the fact that it was used widely (Getty image, AP etc. are used widely because of general syndication, licensing etc.). Even if the Chilean government did sponser the image for use by worldwide media, that still isn't the necessarily then same as being a free image, in much the same way that advertising images which appear everywhere aren't free. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's surely an iconic moment, but not an iconic image. --Damiens.rf 12:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the subject of an iconic image - if I own the rights to an iconic image, I'm one lucky git, I have something which is potentially very valuable, it would not be fair use to utilise the image in the role for which it has become iconic and therefore valuable (NFCC#3 would cover that). If anything if the image is non-free and we are using it in the same way as it's value is being derived then it's actually a very strong case that we can't use it, not a strong case that we can use it --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what commercial application having a low-res copy of the image here will interfere with? Heck, we can't even figure out who owns the rights to the image (if anyone). Further, this is DrV, not FfD2 and that issue wasn't raised (I don't think) in the original discussion... Hobit (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a general comment rather than specific, in response to the rather general comment "If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable" which is presumably meant to lead to a conclusion that we then have the right to use it. Not sure what DRV not FfD2 round2 has to do with responding to your starting comment, indeed no one makes the argument about it being iconic therefore irreplaceable in the FfD, perhaps you should heed your own advice on this being DRV?. As an again general response, if I own rights to something and can sell usage of that to news agencys, encyclopedia publishers etc. to illustrate the event, then it has commercial value in that role, the resolution is an irrelevant detail. As to we can't figure out who own the rights - we can't assume because we can't work it out that it's free to use, no more than we can any of the many images I can find rolling around the internet, copyright is automatic and implicit there is no need for the holder to label it and tell us they own it, its our responsibility to make sure we aren't breeching copyright, no one elses. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure correctly assesses consensus, even if I'd have preferred perhaps to see more participation (but Ffd is never crowded). No way it was a delete in any case. --Cyclopia^talk 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting votes is not the same as assessing consensus. The later, for instance, must involve the dismissal of uninformed or policy-ignoring arguments. --Damiens.rf 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Closers of FFDs relating to non-free images are obliged to take policy into account, and a case for this passing NFCC#8 has not been made out. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image (as a screenshot) is a static and faithful reproduction (by CNN) of an image that was provided by the Chilean government, who provided it under a free license. It has no copyright at the source, and CNN did not create a new one in their rebroadcast. The current licensing tags are just plain wrong and we don't need to make any case under NFCC8. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

What's the evidence that the Chilean government provided the broadcast under a free license? --Damiens.rf 05:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image use terms at AP/Getty, who will provide it, but won't sell it, but don't directly link back to the Chilean governments usage terms either. Their usage terms are also for a high quality still image, not the video feed. I'm still looking for the definitive answer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Overturn and delete Unlike AFD and notability, there can never be a valid local consensus to ignore the non-free content policy - which is what this amounts to. CIreland (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep Evidence in the discussion pointed out the image was likely free content and no one objected to that interpretation. No other basis to delete it. Suitability to the article in question is an issue for the talk page, not DRV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Someone says the image is "likely free" and this is enough you? Ok. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have an image copyright tag "Likely free" ? This again is an issue of burden, the burden is not on the delete commenters to prove it's not free, and likely free != is free --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence in the previous discussion was the media use terms from the Chilean government, which allowed unlimited free use. Those media use terms were noncomfirmed but that is good enough for me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No the "evidence" was seriously lacking, to paraphrase "I think I saw somewhere where it said it was free" - we wouldn't accept that as a free use permission on any other image, we expect a clear release that it is. And indeed if it ever came to a copyright infringement case we certainly wouldn't present such an argument, we'd be laughed at. Even if the chilean government did pay for it and allow new organisations to use it, that still doesn't mean it's be released on a "free" license, we don't know if there were terms on which they permitted use. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much clearer than that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ok the last statement I see is "I am 100% positive that the arrangement I described was in fact the case but I need help finding an accessible English language or translatable Spanish language article to unequivocally assert that my statement is true", which still boils down to some effectively anonymous person on the internet thinks it's ok. As said even if it was released by the government we still have no idea of the terms. If we want to relabel the image as "possibly free, can't find a good reference for that" instead of fair use, I severly doubt it'd survive PUI. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my own research, depending on which branch of the Chilean government was responsible, it was either CC-by-2.0 or public domain. I can verify an educational/media free license from an english language press redistributor. I'm more certain if I can find the actual Chilean source it will be truly free by WP reuse standards. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

McMullen-Booth Road – restored as a contested prod. Please check out WP:REFUND as a less process bound way of getting prods undeleted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
McMullen-Booth Road (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) McMullen-Booth Road is the more common name for County Road 611 (Pinellas County, Florida). It also known as East Lake Road or 49th street. It is one of two major north-south roads for Pinellas, and was named for a prominent family in the early history of Pinellas County. I'm suggesting that the article on County Road 611 redirect to this deleted article, and that more information be included. Important locations off of it are John Chestnut Park, the Bayside Bridge, the Saint Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, Northside Hospital-Tampa Bay Heart Institute, and the Ruth Eckerd Performing Arts Center. Umma Kynes 11:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs) Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Any objections can be dealt with via the usual channels. DRV certainly won't stop you from recreating a page title deleted via prod. Approve and speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

McMullen-Booth Road – restored as a contested prod. Please check out WP:REFUND as a less process bound way of getting prods undeleted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

McMullen-Booth Road is the more common name for County Road 611 (Pinellas County, Florida). It also known as East Lake Road or 49th street. It is one of two major north-south roads for Pinellas, and was named for a prominent family in the early history of Pinellas County. I'm suggesting that the article on County Road 611 redirect to this deleted article, and that more information be included. Important locations off of it are John Chestnut Park, the Bayside Bridge, the Saint Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, Northside Hospital-Tampa Bay Heart Institute, and the Ruth Eckerd Performing Arts Center. Umma Kynes 11:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Any objections can be dealt with via the usual channels. DRV certainly won't stop you from recreating a page title deleted via prod. Approve and speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.