Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 1

January 1

File:Autorretrato con boina roja, Frida Kahlo, 1932.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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status. This has been tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, which implies that it was first published in the United States. However, it has also been tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} with an expiration based on Mexican copyright law, which implies that it was first published in Mexico. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kahlo was living in the U.S. at the time that the self-portait was made. If we consider this as publishing without copyright notice, then it is in the Public Domain. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P, TO 19104. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless information can be found about the details of first publication. The source country is (generally) where the work was first published, not where the work was created. Wikiacc (¶) 00:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Wikiacc's arguments. — Ирука¹³ 09:11, 18 January 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:Recumbent nude, Hans Purrmann, 1940.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: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I don't see why we should assume that it was first published in the United States. Presumably it was instead first published in Germany in which case it's {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The painting was presumably published in Germany, meaning it is still in copyright. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what the copyright laws of Italy are, but the painting was presumably painted in Italy as it is under the Florence section (beside other paintings which were clearly painted of Florence), and the artist's bio states he was in Florence from 1935-1943. Alternatively, per his bio in 1940/1941 there was an exhibition of his paintings in Bern. I don't know if this painting was first exhibited there, or if that would be considered "published", but if so then Switzerland would be the relevant country's copyright laws to consider. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes no difference if the source country is Italy or Switzerland instead of Germany; in all three cases, the painting was protected in the source country on 1 January 1996 and so is copyrighted in the United States per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, in that case delete as a victim of the URAA. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:13, 3 January 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:Penguin Crime I.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: relisted on 2025 January 20. ✗plicit 14:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penguin Crime I.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Alternative versions of Spider-Man (Nick Bradshaw's art).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: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:LEADIMAGE, not every article can have a good infobox image. I think this image would be fine as a free, but it is not needed as a non-free one. Besides, the image only serves this function ("primary identification"): it is not encyclopedic without identifying each character (WP:NFCC#5). This image should have a caption that identifies them (WP:NFCC#8 / WP:NFC#CS); and it should be placed in the most appropriate section of the article (MOS:SECTIONLOC / WP:NFCC#6). And the image could probably be enlarged by 15-25%. — Ирука¹³ 12:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused by the rationale here. Why are you arguing for deletion when you give several solutions to problems only tangentially related to the article's use case? Captions and section location can be discussed editorially; this does not need to be brought to FfD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file violates NFCC and should be deleted via F7#d after 3 days if no one fixes the situation with it. — Ирука¹³ 20:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFCC#8 as removal of the image will not detract from readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 8 January 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:The Daleks Music CD.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: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack cover art's contextual significance to the whole storyline/serial questionable. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#8 and 10c. — Ирука¹³ 10:29, 10 January 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:New Orleans Logo.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: Relicense as free * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo does not meet the Threshold of Originality. The fleur-de-lis is ineligible for copyright based on the fact that it is too simple of a shape and older than the city of New Orleans. The stylized version is not complicated enough to merit copyright, in my opinion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retag with an appropriate PD Logo tag. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move to commons clearly PD. Not sure why this one is lingering. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted tags accordingly. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 23 January 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.