Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 15

February 15

File:Bucher rolleiflex.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus with no immediate expectation of Buffs' response (has not edited since 26/2). (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 03:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that image was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989. — Ирука¹³ 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a photo governed by Italian law. Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Works of photographic art are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are only protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). This is pretty clearly the latter. As this was clearly created in the 50s or MAYBE early 60s (based on the publications at the time), this pretty clearly was in the public domain in 1989 in the US (though this photo doesn't claim that). If it isn't, it certainly is by now in Italy and should be kept with a FUR if you find otherwise. Buffs (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evidence of publication? No source is provided in the Italian Wikipedia upload.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of publication is irrelevant under Italian copyright protections. It's only protected from its creation date, not publication date. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what year and under what law did this image enter the public domain in the United States? — Ирука¹³ 16:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: any response? it's lio! | talk | work 07:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum after closure: it would have entered the public domain in the US in 1989 under the conditions of the Berne Convention. It was PD when that was made the law of the land and was PD from that point forward. Buffs (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dancing with Myself by Maren Morris.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 00:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not follow WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." Rather, a Billy Idol release artwork is at the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i understand but it does serve as the visual identification of the article dedicated to the a different version of the song. Might i suggest change the description?. Paradisetoshutdown (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how the image is important to the description of the cover song, how "its omission would be detrimental" to the understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep different version of the same song. It's appropriate to keep both. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the CSD was challenged: This file is replacable as I recently found a CCTV image of the tornado (File:Cullman tornado CCTV.jpg, rendering this useless. E_F⁵ 03:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quba Mosque.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 00:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that File:Quba Mosque.JPG is a better alternative than this as it isn't tilted. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a need to have 2 files, which are tagged as {{PD-USonly}}, showing the same subject without any vast differences. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This file is currently being used. One file has higher resolution and shows more of the building and one is better framed. I do not see one as being unambiguously better than the other. I do not know exactly how many images we have of the Quba Mosque on en.wikipedia, but it is not an unreasonable number (far closer to a dozen than a hundred) considering that Commons will not host them and this is a super notable building in Islamic history. It is better to give future editors more editorial choice rather than less. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if unused currently, it's encyclopedic and useful. Buffs (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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