Wikimore

6 January 2026

8 January 2026

Deletion requests on 7 January 2026

January 7

File:Argentine premium wines CATENA- AL ESTE - LUIGI BOSCA - NAVARRO CORREAS.jpg

Images copied from various websites and put together, not own work. Like https://shop.klwines.com/products/details/1025573 CitationAuditor (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment Also see,

which is the same file just with flag in the background.--Mammut74 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Draba bertiscea.jpg

No source provided and no evidence of free license given. Uploader has an extensive history of uploading copyvio works. SlvrHwk (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Cretotrigona prisca.jpg

No source provided and no evidence of free license given. Uploader has an extensive history of uploading copyvio works. SlvrHwk (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Great Circle Mapper

(Converted from a CfD by JesseW) The software used to produce these files restricts them to non-commercial use. See also Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Fancyakitas.

– BMacZero (🗩) 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

These are old files that are used one several local wikis, so transfering them down might be necessary. – BMacZero (🗩) 02:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this up, from 4 years ago. :-) JesseW (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi BMacZero and JesseW. I agree the file File:LIR-Americas-destinations.png is outdated the last 4 years, but I'd suggest not to delete it, as it provides turistic information for this airport. I can make the update today for the map, and keep it up to date from now on (same goes for other maps I've created for LIR and SJO airport). If you agree, let's remove it from the deletion request list, and I'll proceed with the updates. Luiscotiquicia (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Luiscotiquicia: The problem with the image isn't that it's outdated. The problem is that images created with the Great Circle Mapper have restrictions that we can't allow on Commons. If you could recreate the image without that program, we could keep it. Otherwise, we'll have to move it to Wikipedia. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted: Wikipedia-only permission and non-commerical licenses do not meet COM:L. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Files in Category:Great Circle Mapper

The source site has a FAQ section: http://www.gcmap.com/faq/using

There, one can read

Q: May I use the Great Circle Mapper's maps on my web page?
A: You may use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on non-commercial web pages[...]

and

Q: May I use the Great Circle Mapper's maps on Wikipedia?
A: You may use maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper on Wikipedia so long as you

Provide attribution to the Great Circle Mapper Include a link to this FAQ entry List the source as the URL used to generate the map, which allows readers to experiment with your map.

For example, the following Wikipedia markup would meet these requirements for a Blue Marble map of SFO-LHR:

== Summary == {{Information |Description = Map of SFO-LHR |Source = http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-LHR&MS=bm |Author = [http://www.gcmap.com/ Great Circle Mapper] |Permission = http://www.gcmap.com/faq/using#wikipedia }} == Licensing == {{Attribution||[http://www.gcmap.com/ Great Circle Mapper]}}

The IP owner has all rights to grant or deny the access to their works for any and all purposes and under any and all prerequisites (even absurd ones like in the Beerware license - accepted on Commons! - or asking e.g. for that an individual who wants to use some intellectual property makes a handstand and barks to the full moon before using the stuff commercially. That's the principle of en:freedom of contract).

Here, the statements for having the authorisation do work with the works are clear ("non-commercial", additionally "on Wikipedia"). We can't assume that something that isn't called Wikipedia can rely upon the blanket authorisation made for Wikipedia (even though Commons is of course an important service provider for the Wikipedias, but we've got to apply the wording literally!). So, the media are certainly not suitable for Commons, and doubly or even triply so: we don't have any OK by the author to host them (to reiterate: it's limited to "Wikipedia"), I don't see any legal statute of limitation like FOP or TOO that could be applicable, and our commercial licensing requirements are also an impediment. This latter point would be also true on any Wikipedia, so for that some WP language edition can use such Great Circle Mapper media, they must have a non-free media rationale, otherwise the given authorisation is likely unusable and moot.

Grand-Duc (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

1) Has the author of Great Circle Mapper, Karl L. Swartz, been contacted? If he is willing to permit usage in Wikipedia, then perhaps he is willing to permit usage in Commons as well. The differences are not clear to most people.

2) If his intent is clear, then instead of deleting any users' work, I suggest simply moving these files from Commons to Wikipedia servers. – Inehmo (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. JWB (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: "For Wikipedia use only", "For non-commercial use only", "For educational use only", etc. types of licenses are also too restrictive for English Wikipedia per en:WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files; so, the files would need to be treated as non-free content. English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, however, is quite restrictive by design, and it's hard to image most (if not all) of the files being discussed here being able to meet all ten of English Wikipedia's non-free content use criteria to justify their non-free use; so, moving the files to English Wikipedia's servers doesn't automatically mean they won't end up being deleted per English Wikipedia policy. Your best chance might be en:Wikipedia:Example requests for permission#Commons/Flickr to see whether you can get the copyright holder's COM:CONSENT; otherwise, the files are likely going to end up being deleted regardless of which server they're being hosted on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep Did they pass the threshold of originality? It is just some simple lines and labels on a plain map. See Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps. HenryLi (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep I don't see anything that is copyrightable. This is a terms of service dispute, in the past, the WMF has ruled that copyright outweighs TOS disagreements. See: National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute --RAN (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
They are useful, educational images; they are just lines and labels as already mentioned, I don't consider them copyrightable. MHernandezp05 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep:I appreciate the vigilance to ensure Commons (and attached Wiki's) retain compliance. I believe Inehmo's suggestions are excellent ones if greater disambiguation needed/desired.
Mr. Swartz has a public reputation as an accomplished and well-regarded gentleman with a legacy of information sharing. Combined with the observation that for outsiders to know the difference between Commons and Wikipedia is highly unusual, I believe his explicit granting of permission is a clear intention that can be clarified rather than loss of these value add images in the mission of Wikipedia & Commons.

As such I support all of the above suggestions from @Inehmo, @HenryLi, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and @MHernandezp05. Suggest we exercise diligence and but not haste in this matter.

(Full Disclosure - I am a contributor for some of the mentioned images above, cited with attribution as per Mr. Swartz' explicit format for Wiki usage) Thanks to @Grand-Duc for the tag as I would have not seen this conversation without it. DigitalExpat (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
The problem isn't whether the files can be used on Wikipedia, Commons or both; it's whether they can be used by anyone anywhere in the world at any time for pretty much any purpose (including commercial and derivative use) under very minimal restrictions as explained in COM:LJ. If the consensus ends up being these files are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection and considered to be within the public domain, as some are stating above, such a thing doesn't really matter because there's are no copyrights to worry about or violate; so, the files can be kept. On the other hand, if all or some of these files are eligble for such protection, then Commons can't host them without having some way of verifying their copyright holder's consent. Without this veritication, the files will end up being deleted. Of course, deleted files can be restored if their copyright holder's consent is subsequently verified, but Commons won't be able to host them just on the hope that perhaps someday that will happen per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2026 (UTC); post edited to clarify comment files if consensus is that they're public domain -- 21:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC).
The WMF has ignored Terms of Service (TOS) restrictions that violate international copyright law. See: Category:Copyfraud and w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute and File:Francis Edward Boland (1873-1913) obituary in the New York Times on January 25, 1913.png as examples. --RAN (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nikita Khrushchev official portrait.jpg

Photograph not public domain in Russia until 2029. Absolutiva 02:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep per {{Simultaneous US publication}}, only 9 days between creation and dissemination to the American press. Based5290 (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Donald Stewart Executed for Mutiny 1837.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Grueslayer as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted by Mary Evans Picture Library (https://www.maryevans.com/contributors/mep/donald-stewart-executed-mutiny-1837-47657446.html). GRuban (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It's an 1837 image, that makes it public domain in every country known to man, no matter what the Mary Evans Picture Library says. For example, in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Trinidad_and_Tobago, which seems most applicable, "For works published anonymously or under a pseudonym where the author's identity does not become known, copyright and moral rights are protected for

75 years from the date on which the work was first published;

75 years from the date on which the work was first made available to the public, if the work has not been published before twenty five years after its making; or

100 years from the making of the work, if the work had neither been made available to the public nor published before twenty-five years after its making." So that last case made it public domain in 1937; every other case as well. --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Which source says the drawing is from 1837? Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The Mary Evans picture library!--GRuban (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Here is Imago, which makes it clear that isn't just the title: "Date: 1837" Shutterstock says "Date created: December 31, 1836", which can't be right; but would make it even older. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of these picture webshops know what thy're doing, and they can't be cited as a source. Take Imago: You're referring to "Date: 1837" in the description (which describes the picture, not its creation). It also claims "Copyright: Gemini picture no. 12067269", which has no context at all and cannot be googled. It also claims "Recording date: 01/01/1930" which is totally out of context. That's a webshop with millions and millions of pictures; they don't curate their wares, they simply know nothing about them. Some context: When a mutineer was executed in the 19th century, he was disgraced as much as possible. He would not have been allowed to wear a fantasy uniform during the execution, even less a headdress. That clearly isn't a contemporary drawing, but a reimagination. From some unknown date. Might have been 1918, might have been 2018 (the year Mary Evans and Alamy list). We know nothing about the date of creation. Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The "recording date 1930" refers to the Gemini picture collection. Imago has many images that say "Gemini picture", and they all say "recording date 1930"; Gemini seems to be a 1930 image collection that they own and are selling this way. Mary Evans apparently got the image from a separate source. --GRuban (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The mutiny was in 1837. That says nothing about the creation date of the drawing. Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that's stretching. The common meaning of the date on text about a drawing is the date of the drawing. For example, see our images

File:Massaw.jpg - our text says "A sketch of Massaw made in 1837". The source doesn't say that, it only says "Massay, 1837" Are we to say that doesn't mean the picture was made in 1837, but was just the time of the event, and the actual picture could have been made any other date?
File:Samarkand and environs. Uzbekistan. Sketch map 1885.jpg also gives a date without saying "made in", are we going to assume it just happens to give a picture of Uzbekistan in 1885, but wasn't made in 1885? --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Man and Woman of Barbados and an Indian of Surinam Here, this is one from Imago, saying "Date:1837", in every way a parallel - are you saying that text means this picture, portraying three people, without other context, was not made in 1837, but portrays an event of 1837? What event could it possibly portray? --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe my pretensions are too high - I'm mainly busy on Wikipedia, where we work with sources, not with assumptions. But when I try to apply common sense only, your examples tell this:

File:Massaw.jpg: The creator is en:George Winter (artist) who worked in northern Indiana from 1837 to the 1840s, making it likely 1837 is the correct year.
File:Samarkand and environs. Uzbekistan. Sketch map 1885.jpg: The map is from en:La Nouvelle Géographie universelle vol. 6, which (in its English translation) according to Google Books (unreliable) came out in 1876, but there were later re-issues. It's possible that the 1885 date is correct.
Man and Woman of Barbados and an Indian of Surinam: Imago is not a source, and this picture is a good example why: It's actually from William Adams' The Modern Voyager and Traveller through Europe, Asia, Africa, and America from 1828. Stock photo databases do not research their images on an individual basis. They are never a source for us.

So no, "the date on text about a drawing is the date of the drawing" is not correct per se, but depends on the context. Got any context for the picture in question? Kind regards, Grueslayer (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Just the fact that the date is straightforwardly in the title and description, of multiple copies of the image. Looks like we'll have to let the closing admin decide. Very respectfully, --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep Not seeing evidence the image is under an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Maduro indictment 2026.pdf

This wasn't made by the DOJ. It specifically says it was made by the Southern District of New York. New York is a state that maintains copyright on their works and is not public domain. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The Southern District of New York is a federal court district; most federal documents (including court records) are in the public domain. Battlesnake1 (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep its a pdf file which the AG herself said is unsealed which means its public domain now as its now part of an ongoing case, a case that has already begun so it sound silly to have the indictment for that case still not be in public domain...--Ste moc 06:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This is not a New York State document. The Southern District of New York is a federal district and this is a federal indictment produced by the DOJ. It's been unsealed and is available on multiple public outlets. ~2026-13896-6 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the comments above. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep This is a document belonging to the US Federal Government. I see no concerns. --cyrfaw (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the clear confusion between the SDNY (a federal judicial district) and the State of New York. — chrs (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Освячення могили воїнам УГА.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Johnj1995 as no source (No source since) 1926 photograph, would still need publication information but this could be public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Assassin snail.jpg

the caption and title do not match the picture. on the picture we see a terrestrial snail but assassin snails are aquatic. so this pictture is just wrong. Loomahuviline69 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep No reason for deletion. File name and description can be changed if necessary. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep Agreed. Usable photo. Categorization should be improved, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Agnes Raeburn.jpg

1940s or 1950s photograph, could be public domain in the UK, but was definitely restored by URAA. Abzeronow (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep We allow families to release images under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. --RAN (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- If the photographer is a family member. For all we know the family member only had possession of the photograph, but not the copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:AIR OF3 CDT d.png

French military rank, bird looks above French ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with this file? The bird is looking "up" or "down" depending on the shoulder. Jojoj770170 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The bird looks complex enough to be copyrightable and French government works aren't automatically public domain. If you can show the bird design to old enough to be public domain, then this (and the others) are fine. Abzeronow (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

In my view, this file is a simplified and vectorized reproduction of a real uniform element, not a slavish copy of an identifiable graphic artwork. The simplification and geometric style make it a descriptive representation, not an autonomous artistic work. Otherwise, most official insignia, emblems and logos would have to be considered problematic, which does not match either Commons practice or usual usage. As far as I know, there is no legally defined “official drawing” for this specific motif: it is an element of uniform design that has varied over time and between manufacturers. Finally, if an original drawing does exist, it would still be necessary to identify its author and its date. If it goes back to the early decades of the French Air Force (created in 1934), then we are potentially dealing with a design more than 90 years old, and therefore possibly in the public domain depending on the duration of copyright. In the absence of a precise source, the burden of proof lies with the person claiming that rights exist. Jojoj770170 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

COM:PCP and COM:EVID says the opposite, but if this does go back to the early French Air Force, then I'd be willing to agree that it probably is public domain, but that has to be proven. Abzeronow (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:AIR OFD ASP d.png

French military rank, bird looks above ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with this file? The bird is looking "up" or "down" depending on the shoulder. Jojoj770170 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nadja Zwanziger 2019.jpg

Possible copyvio. Reason: Clearly a portrait shot by a professional photographer— which is why I doubt this pic to be a selfie (which indicates "source: own work" and the author's name). KlausHeide (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. @KlausHeide, have you tried to contact Ms. Zwanziger? It would be best if this much-used image were not deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The uploader specified on dewiki that the photo was taken at the Film Festival Cologne, so I also agree that this is most likely a photo by a professional photographer. Nakonana (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sign Jerome Polin.svg

Gambar tanda tangan ini tampaknya diunggah tanpa izin dari pemilik. Berpotensi melanggar hak cipta/privasi dan tidak relevan secara ensiklopedis. Kartika29 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

"This signature image appears to have been uploaded without the owner's permission. It is potentially a copyright/privacy violation and is encyclopedically irrelevant."

The last part is nonsense because the file is COM:INUSE on id.wikipedia.org. However, the word "signature" is not found in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia. So if anyone knows what rules apply to signatures in Indonesia, could they please add that information there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Kept: Indonesia is a civil law country, signatures are likely not copyrighted. --Abzeronow (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Sign Jerome Polin.svg

The subject (via management) requested to remove this signature file due to privacy concerns and potential misuse, as it is not the correct version of the subject's signature. Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep: proof? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contributions · he/him) 13:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Whyiseverythingalreadyused. But, how can I provide proof if I can't attach images here?Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have attached the proof in this link.Ogidzatul Azis Sueb (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Check out the Volunteer Response Team Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contributions · he/him) 04:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Mamluk Sultanate Map.png

Significantly lower quality and unsourced compared to file:Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo 1317 AD.jpg, which the uploader replaced it with (I've since put the original file back) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Support (delete). The map is a unsourced creation via Google Gemini, therefore of no encyclopedic use. R Prazeres (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Makovsky - child-funeral.jpg

A better version of this painting is available at File:Маковский Похороны-ребенка 1872.jpg. Although the higher-quality version is an older file (uploaded 2012, compared to the deletion subject's 2018), it does not appear to be a duplicate. It does appear to be redundant, however. I have replaced the usage of the file on the projects it was used on. EdoAug (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Makovsky - oriental-funeral-in-cairo.jpg

Superceded (redundant) version of File:Konstantin Makovsky — Oriental funeral in Cairo (early 1870s).jpg. Does not appear to be in use. EdoAug (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Oni-byli-pervymi.jpg

Obvious copyright violation, missing permission and wrong summary. Yousiphh (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Such photograph portraits began to circulate after the USSR's collapse. It's impossible to consider a portrait of a repressed person to have been painted during the Soviet era, even if that were true; the artist obviously didn't die in the 1930s, so the work would be in the public domain. Yousiphh (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Caplogadebowaleoluwasolaphilipadewoleomotoyosiabracadabraobaidan.png

Vanity, not a webhost etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete screenshot uploaded by someone who was blocked globally for cross-wiki abuse. Nakonana (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Liberwicca (talk · contribs)

Files that appear to have been intended for self-promotion. They don't seem otherwise useful either.

Sinigh (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:165117 & 165127 at Woking working 3Q54 Reading Traincare Depot to Guildford via Basingstoke 25 10 25 (54880849810).jpg

duplicate of File:165117 and 165127 at Woking railway station, Surrey - October 2025.jpg Mertbiol (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:台中市公車800路.jpg

But GWOIA is available at https://travel.taichung.gov.tw/zh-tw/siteinformation/gwoia Hehua (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Old Riga airport "Spilve" (15108613780).jpg

Derivative work Юрий Д.К. 11:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

De minimis? If not, blur the mural if necessary. Would there by any remaining problem after that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the building isn't in PD yet. It is my old Flickr import. Юрий Д.К. 09:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Info According to w:ru:Спилве (аэропорт) the building was built in 1954 by architect Sergey Vorobyov (Сергей Воробьёв) (1888–1971). Nakonana (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Escudo Almaraz de Duero.svg

Nominator's rationale: Copyright claim disputed.

This file contains the official coat of arms of Almaraz de Duero (municipality in Zamora, Spain), which was officially approved by the Municipal Council on December 2, 2010, and published in the BOCYL (Official Gazette of Castile and León) on February 7, 2011.

Legal basis for public domain status:

Under Spanish law (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, Article 13 on Intellectual Property), official administrative acts published in official gazettes are public domain:

Article 13: "Not subject to intellectual property are legal or regulatory provisions and their corresponding projects, resolutions of judicial bodies, and acts, agreements, deliberations and opinions of public bodies, as well as official translations of all such texts."

This is the same legal principle that applies to other official Spanish coats of arms on Commons, such as the Coats of arms of Spain which are all in the public domain.

Sources:

BOCYL official publication (February 7, 2011)
Official municipal heraldry page
Official electronic headquarters (coat of arms visible in official header)

The copyright claim is based on the mistaken assumption that because the coat of arms appears on the municipality's website, it is protected by copyright. However, the legal status of an official administrative act is not determined by where it is displayed, but by its nature as a public administrative document published in an official gazette.

Keep. This is an official municipal coat of arms approved by official administrative act and published in the official gazette, therefore it is public domain under Spanish law. Antidio (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

File:A Daruma street art at Taipei 20151124.jpg

non-free 2D works in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dendrolagus notatus 249639440.jpg

The file was removed from source due to copyright infringement, see https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/249639440. Günther Frager (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Redmi Logo.png

Duplicate Мункач Варош (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Redmi Logo.png

The uploader Say is CC-BY BUT is not CC-BY istrademarkJamesLatts (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

and I wanna say The creator is wrong about CC-BY is trademark JamesLatts (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Trademark protection ≠ copyright protection. Wiki Commons is only concerned about copyright. The logo consists entirely of text, so it might even fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shake, Rattle and Roll XV Official Trailer - Alice Dixson.png

Not seeing where there is a free license on the YouTube source page. Same for File:Alice Dixson, 2014 (cropped).png. GMG ^talk 13:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep reviewed by a trusted reviewer. Free licenses are irrevocable. Edit: I see the user has been banned but I verified using archive.org that the license was there. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
@Nard the Bard: I'm just sure how. For me, 2017 versions have a standard YT license and prior versions have no license information at all. GMG ^talk 20:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
It had it here https://web.archive.org/web/20160609090052/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS8Re0XZudY $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Hmm. Still doesn't work, not on a different browser either. I guess that's a "me problem". GMG ^talk 21:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Kept: Withdrawn. --GMG ^talk 21:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

For archived Youtube videos I right click and view page source in browser then Ctrl+F search "creative_commons", which will only be there if the video had the license, no need to try to open the description which often doesn't work in the archive $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 21:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Dante Boninfante (6448275917).jpg

Wrong player photo. This is Luigi Mastrangelo Wozimba (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

{{Rename}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

keep it. A wrong name is not a reason to delete a file. I changed the name. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Fox Fur Nebula (30611917930).jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm and I don' Lithopsian (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

"Scientists and educators who are using these data for research, teaching purposes and other non-profit activities may freely use these data and we only request that you acknowledge the source in any publication." ~2026-19012-6 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Not sufficient: "Commercial use of these data is prohibited without permission." --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Non-profit excludes commercial usage. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Fox DSS RGB (18652318678).jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm and I don't think a declaration on Flickr changes that Lithopsian (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nick Drake.JPG

Per COM:DW. Nick Drake died in 1974 and the author according to the description was born in 1964. He might have created the artwork, but he definitively didn't take original photo. Günther Frager (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Armoiries officielles de la ville de Paris.pdf

Fichier non à jour. Inutilisé. RaphaëlMignon (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither are deletion reasons. Why on earth do you think they are? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armoiries de la ville de Paris selon le décret du 14 février 1924.jpg

Le fichier est en doublon RaphaëlMignon (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Kept: different proportions. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Armoiries de la ville de Paris selon le décret du 14 février 1924.jpg

Fichier non à jour. Inutilisé RaphaëlMignon (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither are deletion reasons. Why on earth do you think they are? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Au croisement des vallées.jpg

File:Felice Casorati - Ritratto di Carlo Sacco e Carolina Cerutti Sacco 1928.jpg

not in PD (2034) Goesseln (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Klaudia darkstreet.jpg

Looks like a photomontage of a low-quality background with a video game character. Also, FBMD metadata present. Btrs (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:SS Empire Star.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EurekaLott as no source (No source since)
The ship shown in that photograph was sunk in 1942 and maybe some PD old license, like PD-AustraliaGov may apply. Msb (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete - With no source information, there is no way to determine the license status of this image. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete per Whqp above, and per the uploader's extensive history of copyvios. Every single contribution they've ever made on Commons has been deleted for copyright violations except this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per above. I think this is a 1919 ship, named Empirestar then, renamed Empire Star in 1930, renamed Tudor Star in 1935, and scrapped in 1950. The ship that sunk in 1942 was built in 1935 for the same company and took over the name; photo of that here (different ship). If this is an Australian photo it's fine, if it's UK, it's probably not. The immediate internet source for this is likely here, but no provenance there either (and incorrectly used on an article for the 1935 ship there). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Janwszedyrowny (talk · contribs)

Mostly text-only images, not in use, user's only uploads

Btrs (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Product packaging

Product packaging carrying original printed designs cannot be uploaded to Commons, even if you personally own the physical object and even if you took the photograph yourself. See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Product packaging. --Huangdan2060 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete most of these, but is it possible the water bottles are under COM:TOO and other items in those photos are de minimis or sufficiently unsharp? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Girl in restaurant jpeg.jpg

Some sort of meme image being passed round on X – https://x.com/Aareof30bg/status/2008899064742494623 for instance – before it was uploaded here, which makes Own Work/CC0 unlikely. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Scaldis clublied.MID

Unexplained melody, out of scope. Jcb (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Start of the 1972 Vierzustersteden cycling tournament.jpg

Own work by uploader seems highly unlike, but way too recent to be out of copyright. No permission from real author. Jcb (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Start of the 1972 Vierzustersteden cycling tournament (cropped).jpg

The file where this one was cropped from File:Start of the 1972 Vierzustersteden cycling tournament.jpg has been nominated for deletion, because of lack of permission. Jcb (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Beach pool pic.jpg

Some sort of meme image being passed around X before being uploaded here – https://x.com/ASA__ODOGWU/status/2000191739529757102 for instance – albeit edited with Google AI to remove the original uploader's legs. Very unlikely to be Own Work/CC0. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Sam Denby SYA Passport Picture (crop 2x3).jpg

Originally was tagged for speedy deletion by @Darth Stabro for COM:CSD#F1, see: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sam_Denby_SYA_Passport_Picture.jpg TansoShoshen (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Original F1 deletion criterion was:

This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.flickr.com/photos/denby/14113124745/ TansoShoshen (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2007-12-19 pce zone 03web (Salvatore Lamattina).jpg

This picture is attributed to the incorrect living person. Gloribelrivasoldz (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep, correct identification now made. This is state cabinet secretary Kevin Burke, who is also of note. LaMattina was standing mostly obscured in the original pic this was cropped from, behind the governor SecretName101 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Egypt

per updated wording of COM:FOP Egypt following Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/08#Egyptian FoP. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Petrus-Lotichius-Kirche Niederzell Blick in Kirchenraum.jpg

copyvio, artist of stained glass windows (and mural, probably) is alive; no fop. Martin Sg. (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jad jay (talk · contribs)

Œuvres de fr:Gilles Roussi, exposées en France qui ne recconait pas la liberté de panorama. Une autorisation explicite de l'artiste est nécessaire voir Placer des images sous une licence : quand contacter VRT ? .

Habertix (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jad jay~commonswiki (talk · contribs)

Œuvre de , Une autorisation explicite de l'artiste est nécessaire voir Placer des images sous une licence : quand contacter VRT ? .

File:Roussi gilles sculpture le mystere du temps.jpg

Habertix (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Монумент "Героям Гражданской Войны".jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1985 statue and it is protected with copyright in USA until 2081 (95+1 years from creation). The sculptor ru:Екубенко, Юрий Фёдорович died in 1991 and the statue is copyrighted in Russia until 2062 (70+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:2025 Sidon airstrike.gif

Evidence of permission is needed Trade (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Современный Икар 01.jpg

also file:Современный Икар 02.jpg
There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. The sculptor ru:Багаутдинов, Рифкат Шайфутдинович died in 2012 and the sculpture is protected with copyright until 2083 (70+1 years from death). USA demands 95+1 years from publication, but this is created in 1970-s and the copyright in USA expires sooner. Taivo (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Т34 ярцево.jpg

also file:Ярцево танк.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. USA demands 95+1 years from publication and the monument was erected between 1969 and 1986. Russia demands 70 (74) +1 years from death and I do not know, who the sculptor is. Taivo (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

1983 work by artist Анатолий Иванович Чибисов (1937-1991) and sculptor Альберт Георгиевич Сергеев (1926-2003). Undelete in 2074. Nakonana (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Appointment of Prof. Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi as Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University.jpg

This is a letter of appointment. I think a copyright expert is required to make a judgement here. I have tried to see how it might pass the licence applied to it but failed. It may be that it needs a different or additional licence. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Roberto Repole-02.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. Please upload the original screen capture from YouTube, not an AI-retouched version. Omphalographer (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Uploaded the original screen capture from YouTube, now. tks. Alex Pereira^disc 10:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Sigalon chat GPT.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph or artwork, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

This AI generation I did myself, is based on a public print of the 19th century. Yann François GAUTIER (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Lundens f d prästgård.jpg

Jag tog denna bilden, mitt fullständiga namn finns tillgänglig på denna sidan. Därför vill jag ta bort den. DumbLlama (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

"I took this picture, my full name is available on this page. Therefore I want to remove it."

Speedy keep No can do: COM:INUSE. I would support some other user saving the image while deleting the name of the author in the EXIF and then revdelling the original upload. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dandy's_World.webp

Appears to rise above the threshold of originality, and I'm inclined to believe the uploader is not the copyright holder. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/07

January 7

Files in Category:Great Circle Mapper

Files in Category:Great Circle Mapper

Files uploaded by Liberwicca (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Janwszedyrowny (talk · contribs)

Product packaging

Files uploaded by Jad jay (talk · contribs)

Files uploaded by Jad jay~commonswiki (talk · contribs)