Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/16

February 16

File:Iryna Bilyk at Laima Rendez Vous Jurmala 2017 (cropped).jpg

The photo is not licensed for use. Kuzialook (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, can you perhaps elaborate further? I checked and the author of the source image (File:Aslan Akhmadov and Irina Bilik at Laima Rendez Vous Jurmala 2017.jpg) has indeed licensed the image under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Фото зроблено та кадровано надто близько, через що воно виглядає невдало й негативно впливає на репутацію артиста. Kuzialook (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, thank you for the explanation. I struck out my keep vote since I agree the framing and angle of this image is not good, and there exists other images with better quality of this person (e.g. File:Iryna Bilyk22.jpg). So, I think this image can be deleted based on quality issues. Also, this image technically is not COM:INUSE since it is only used in user pages and auto-generated list pages. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Giorgia Andriani gym.jpg

BollywoodHungama images are only permitted for " images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites." This image is not included in any of those criteria. Tagged for copyvio but OP removed speedy. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann, the reviewer and previously involved admin in a similar discussion. Zuck28 (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Casual images from Bollywood Hungama are accepted if they are in parties-and-events/, like other similar images in Category:Giorgia Andriani, and thousands more of other Bollywood personalities. Yann (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The link is a 404. I would consider this a party or event, but a casual image would not be considered a party or event just because it is listed in that category in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
That what the permission says. Yann (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
The permission says, "This applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites." Am I reading that wrong? The image is not at a set, a party, or press meeting. Also, the 404 may be an indication that BH no longer wants anything in the category under the permission. At this discussion it seems like BH won't even respond to clarification on the 15 year old permission. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Барабан имой.wav

Хочу загрузить другую версию, потому что не могу вставить этот файл в конкурс "Вики любит фольклор" Dezarius (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment what about "Upload a new version of this file"? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Only files that were uploaded during the time of the campaign (Feb-March 2026) can be submitted to Wiki Loves Folklore 2026. The nominated file was uploaded in 2024. Nakonana (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the file should be deleted. @Dezarius, nothing is stopping you from uploading a new file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
something is stopping me, namely the fact that when uploading a new version the system says smt like 'you can't upload the same file twice' Dezarius (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Use a different filename. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
The problem might be that the new version is too similar to the old version so that the upload tool thinks that it is a duplicate. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
In that case, why wouldn't the "Upload a new version of this file" button on this file page work? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
It would work but the uploader wouldn't be able to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 contest because the contest only accepts images that were initially uploaded during the time of the contest, this file however was first uploaded in 2024. It cannot be submitted to the contest unless it's a fresh February-March 2026 upload.
But that point is moot anyway because the submission deadline for the 2026 contest has already passed at the end of March. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Dr. Madhav Gadgil Memorial

I don't think these posters are own work. Are they in scope?

Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Created for our program https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sahya_Digital_Conservation_Foundation/Events/2026/Remembering_Madhav_Gadgil. --Manoj Karingamadathil (Talk) 18:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The guy appears to be in scope: Madhav Gadgil. Nakonana (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Allerheiligenkirche am Kreuz und Bruderhaus.jpg

Unclear Copyright: This image is a derivative of a public domain document, yet for the coloring a copyright has been claimed. ERC ARCHIATER (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument. What has been colorized by whom? The earliest version I could find of this is from 1910, fully colorized: File:Stadtplan München von Gustav Steinlein auf Grundlage des Sandtnerschen Stadtmodells.jpg, source (annotated, under CC license): Renerpho (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Metro Manila Subway Project Ortigas Station Billboard 12Jan2025 07.jpg

No freedom of panorama in the Philippines A1Cafel (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)


 Question is this not government's work? SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@SomeFancyUsername: The billboard itself sans the underlying images is a government work, but the underlying images do not appear to be. Some of the images show computerized renditions of the interior station design of the w:en:Metro Manila Subway. We already see too many red flags here, Wikimedia Commons-wise: every entity listed the billboard is all private entities: OCGlobal-JV and Tokyu Tobishima Megawide Joint Venture (a consortium of Tokyu Construction, Tobishima Corporation, and Megawide Construction Corporation). It is very likely that these computerized renditions of the subway station (which is still under construction) are authored by the people who work in any of those private entities. It is very unlikely that regular employees of the w:en:Department of Transportation (Philippines) created those computerized renditions.
Additionally, Sec. 176(3) of the PH copyright law permits retention of copyright should copyrighted works be used or incorporated in a government document (in the case of this image, the document is the billboard).
To verify, though, I'll ping some Pinoy Wikipedians who I think are familiar with either PH transpo articles on enwiki or the PH copyright issues: @RFNirmala, Ganmatthew, Lowkeypedia, LMP 2001, Chlod, Aristorkle, and Ralffralff: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Government use of copyrighted images does not mean they become works of government. I did a DR for something similar here. --Aristorkle (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with JWilz12345 here. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to just censoring out the renders from the photo then revision deletion rather than normal deletion. There's useful info on the image that can be used as a reference for structured data. Logos at the bottom are probably de minimis and won't require censoring. Chlod (say hi!) 00:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Chlod preferably, the censored image will go under Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in the Philippines, similar to the de facto practices like those at Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in France and Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in Taiwan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Aristorkle@Chlod@SomeFancyUsername the only question now is if the copyrightable elements are censored out (like what is being done to images from France, South Korea, and Luxembourg, countries with no recognized commercial public place/FoP exemptions), would the resulting censored image be within COM:SCOPE? How will the censored image be usable "as a reference for structured data." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
See d:Special:Diff/2457609164/2465289494. Chlod (say hi!) 14:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
The existence of censored images of landmarks from countries with no or insufficient commercial FoP rules is for the purpose of Wikimedia advocacies and, in the case of censoring images from countries with sufficient commercial FoP rules like from Germany and from UK, a form of Wikimedians' protests vs. threats to FoP clauses (like the European Parliament events of summer 2015). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how relevant this statement is. This isn't a picture of a highly important building; it's a transparency board. Chlod (say hi!) 13:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
@Chlod yes, but how is the transparency board suitable for inclusion on WikiCommons under COM:SCOPE? There are already representative examples of Philippine transparency boards under Category:Tarpaulin signs in the Philippines that are uncensored, e.g. File:01867jfPlaridel Bypass Arterial Road Bypass Project, Phase II San Rafael, Bulacanfvf 19.jpg and File:09933jfPlaridel Bypass Arterial Road Bypass Project Phase II San Rafael Bulacanfvf 15.jpg. Keeping somehow "text-only" works in which the only interesting elements are censored here may lean to becoming out of COM:SCOPE, unless usage within Wikimedia and beyond can be proven or demonstrated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Struck out, as it was an edit conflict with a recent response from Chlod. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo almussafes01.png

This file was initially tagged by Nv8200pa as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. Not own work, real source is needed. Category:Coats of arms of Almussafes has somewhat different logos, maybe the nominated logo is incorrect. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to this image being removed. It's a logo the town hall used for a while, and it seems they were "inspired" by the official coat of arms. It has quite a few differences (or rather, heraldic errors) compared to the official coat of arms: they've changed the color of the abbot's crosier from sable (black) to gold (yellow), and they've added a strange crown (a lord's crown with added fleurons) that isn't the correct one. It seems the town hall has stopped using it (thankfully!) and replaced it with a colorful "A," although it still appears in some images on their Facebook profile. The image (being a logo) may have some kind of intellectual property rights and perhaps should be removed. Macondo (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

File:William Tanner and Sasu Punanen boxing.jpg

{{PD-Finland50}} does not apply because this is a drawing not a photograph. However, {{PD-Finland}} might apply if this is indeed anonymous. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:National Anthem of Spain modified.ogg

There are official versions of the anthems ~2026-10451-87 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are. The performance is freely licensed, the composition is a more difficult matter to determine since the version the performer is using is from 1997 and the last surviving author (Francisco Grau Vegara) died in 2019. The Spanish government owns the copyright to the song though. Abzeronow (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Kirche Marienbrunn

copyright violation; artist of stained glass window, Paula Jordan, died in 1986 (public domain noz before 2057), no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)


 Question Isn't this public art? Compare de:Kunst im öffentlichen Raum#Abbildungsrechte and, for example, de:Heiligenrode (Stuhr)#Kunst im öffentlichen Raum (which lists a mural in a school and a stained glass window inside of a church as examples of public art). Renerpho (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
In Germany, indoors aren‘t „öffentlich“ in this sense, see de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium_„öffentlich“. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Quote from the page you've linked (section "Innenansicht und Innenarchitektur"): Im Fall eines kunstvoll gestalteten Kirchenfensters ist eine isolierte Wiedergabe nach Ansicht des Obersten Gerichtshofs schon deshalb zulässig, weil das Fenster selbst Teil des Bauwerks (und zwar der Außen- und Innenansicht) ist und nicht erst im Kontext des Raumes dazu wird. This applies to File:Kirche Marienbrunn 05.jpg; whether it applies to the rest, I don't know. Renerpho (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The section you quote is in concern of Austria (there is fop indoors also; but not in Germany). Martin Sg. (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Elis regina 1964.jpg

Sem informações Fergundis (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

reason: "Sem informações" (???) .... @Fergundis: have you taken a look at the description and license, or you're only nominating files arbitrarily? Fma12 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)


  • Oppose. The licensing templates should be restored. They were removed without explanation, and I don't see that the nominator has explained why they are invalid.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Not in PD. Derivative work of File:Elis Regina (1964).tif, deleted by «Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Foto de estúdio, não coberta pela URAA». LMLM (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete with LMLM, who said it isn't in PD because is a derivate work of a Copyvio deleted image. Guedexx (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by JanLisaki (talk · contribs)

There is no evidence this is in use anywhere. We do not keep personal art from people who are not themselves notable artists. In any event we certainly do not need two versions of it that are almost identical.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

A friend just informed that the 593:398 flag should be uploaded to replace Viossa_Flag.png, as this file is indeed of that ratio, and because there is currently no public evidence that the 3:2 flag is used. I intend to reupload the files as Viossa Flag.svg (what I called Traditional Viossa Flag.svg) and Viossa Flag (3-2).svg (what I called Viossa Flag.svg).
It is necessary to upload both flags, as the issue has caused a lot of discussion in the community. It was decided that the flags with both aspect ratios should be uploaded as alternate versions of each other. I'm not sure how to cite Discord messages as a source. The administrator of the Viossa Discord server said "I just don't like the idea that we should try to get others to conceive of one as correct and one as not, as opposed to one in 3:2 and another in 583:398". JanLisaki (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
@JanLisaki: that is largely beside the point for a DR.
 Keep given that File:Viossa Flag.png is in use, an SVG version of the same flag is presumably fine. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep given that the File:Viossa Flag.png can be seen on a multitude of webpages such as, but not limited to:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flags_of_constructed_languages
https://sona.pona.la/wiki/Toki_Pona_is_a_living_language
https://languagemuseum.org/language-of-the-month-may-2022-viossa/
https://tok.wikipedia.org/wiki/sitelen:Viossa_Flag.png
https://duostories.org/
https://ie.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viossa
- Vydrakk (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ekrem Shaqiri 2023.jpg

Privat spere Ferati (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Artiol Shaqiri (talk · contribs), the uploader, appears to be the family member or relative of the subject of the image. Perhaps a COM:VRTS identity verification needed or w:en:WP:AGF (assume good faith that the uploader is the photographer because he is part of the subject's family)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by AfghanHazra281 (talk · contribs)

Files with no plausible exifdata. Image looks like screenshots, taken from other websites. Other uploads of the user were copyvios. Delete per COM:PCP.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:14 Avenue Gallieni, Courbevoie (01).jpg

Copyrighted image that doesn’t fit into Creative Commons.--Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Wait more information. @Neoclassicism Enthusiast: where does this image come from? If you are the author, you can choose the licence you want. For the subject, this building was built in 1904 by Eugène Coulon (1872-1942) so it's in the public domain. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
It was taken from Pinteret a long time ago, when I didn’t understand that well how things work here. Neoclassicism Enthusiast (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)