Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/15

February 15

File:GD 廣東 Guangdong 廣州 Guangzhou 食店 restaurant n 佛山 Foshan 高明區 Gaoming 中華老字號牌 海天 China Time-honored brand 調味醬 Sauce bottle label 蒜蓉辣醬 Chilli carlic January 2024 R12S 02.jpg

Per COM:PACKAGE A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep per COM:De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The pictures of red peppers might be de minimis, but is the curved line OK per COM:TOO China? From the examples given, probably. I think this is not an obvious keep or delete. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ribor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image (with two slightly different versions). If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph, please upload the original.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not an AI picture ! I have the negative : it is the scan of the original (I change light and contrast to enhance quality... but I post the original and the enhanced by mistake)
Ce n'est pas une image IA ! J'ai le negatif et c'est le scan de l'original; J'ai juste modifié luminosité et contraste pour l'émliorer... mais j'ai posté par erreur l'original et la version améliorée Ribor (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@Ribor: de ce que je comprends de ta page de présentation, tu avais 7 ans lors de la prise de cette photo ; cela rend l'indication "Travail personnel" assez douteuse. Es-tu vraiment le photographe ? et sinon qui ? serait-il aussi possible refaire un scan de meilleur qualité ? Moins important mais peux-tu aussi donner des précisions sur l'image (j'ai fait quelques améliorations rapides mais je ne connais pas l'image). Dans tout les cas, j'ai d'ores et déjà supprimé l'image en double. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Dar Raj 1699-1801.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image; it was not "digitized from physical copy". Is there any factual source for this supposed flag? Omphalographer (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Should not be deleted. Image obtained from here-
Jammu Heraldic Notes, compiled by Capt. H. W. L. Denham, Political Department Press, Lahore, 1904.
Plate XII: “Banner of the Akhnoor Zamindar Household (Darr) TheYellowNeegayi (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Мико (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these are all AI-generated images of flags. Is there any historical evidence of this flag design?

Omphalographer (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

They are AI generated - yes. And here are the original pictures. Мико (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
This might actually be a case where the AI result is close enough to the original that it might be useful and usable for educational purposes. Nakonana (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Мико (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: these images were generated or modified using AI. If these images were generated based on freely licensed photographs, please upload the originals.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The originals have some watermarks and inscriptions. But OK - I will upload them. Мико (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Done. So we have a policy against AI corrections? Мико (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Aitzina logoa.png

Spanish logo, might have "uniqueness, individuality and distinguishability" in how it renders the text. Abzeronow (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Gloriamacapagal (talk · contribs)

Incomplete information on the origins of these image files as well as dubious authorship claims (in two of the files).

Involved files
This might be public domain (possibly {{PD-Philippines-1972}}) but needs more information and the date of first publication of the image. Claimed author is Ramon Diokno (the son of the person depicted in the image) but links to the uploader's user page (User:Gloriamacapagal).
Dated 1983. Claimed author is Ramses Filomeno but links to the uploader's userpage (User:Gloriamacapagal).
Dated 1984. Claimed author: "National Library of the Philippines (distributed by Philippine Presidential Museum and Library)." However, the original photo is unlikely to have been photographed by a government employee or official, given the fact that the subjects of the image are demonstrators and protesters, not pro-government supporters. It is illogical for a government employee or official to ordinarily document the people who oppose them, unless the photography work of the government official/employee was conducted during their operations vs. those protesters. Do note that it occurred during the latter years of Marcos Sr. administration; and even then it is unlikely that authorities or officials would photograph/document the people who oppose them, if outside operations to suppress or capture those people. The scene does not appear to be in the middle of a police or military operation vs. the protesters. All in all unlikely to be {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

File:김관용 경북지사.jpg

This image file is not CCO 3.0. According to Uploader, This image is from '통일뉴스'. However, this article is '무단전제 및 재배포 금지'(en:Prohibition of unauthorized presuppositions and redistribution). So this image can't upload in Wikipedia Commons. Lumitime (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:서병수 의원.jpg

This image file is not CCO 3.0. According to Uploader, This image is from '부산일보'. However, this article is '무단전제 및 재배포 금지'(en:Prohibition of unauthorized presuppositions and redistribution). So this image can't upload in Wikipedia Commons. Lumitime (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Rhodesian Security Forces Logotype.svg

The copyright status of that image appears to be fraudulent - the uploader cannot be the copyright owner as claimed Creuzbourg (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Escudo Al-Sadd Sports Club.png

This file was initially tagged by Eric Duff as Logo May be PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Well, I am not sure. This is probably in the public domain in USA, so it depends of the country of origin. Anyway, a regular DR is better in this case. Yann (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:PKP 5 370 003-3 (8014549128).jpg

Nearly a duplicate of File:370003 PKP EU44 - Berlin Ostbahnhof - Torsten Maue.jpg Lukas Beck (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:VX BerlinOstbf retouched.jpg

Nearly a duplicate of File:VX BerlinOstbf.jpg Lukas Beck (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Korea-Seoul-Hammering Man 1933-06.JPG

As marked in COM:FOP US situation is more complicated for public artwork installed between 1978 and 1 February 1989. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Previous UDR for this file can be found here. Consensus seems to be that there is a lack of copyright registration and hence there was no copyright in the work. Also the file was kept in a DR in Dec last year. S5A-0043🚎 14:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Yes. This image is allowed because the sculpture is PD per UR1 and UR2). --Ox1997cow (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
The image is in use here, so do not delete. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per @S5A-0043 and @Ox1997cow. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Animal Crossing 2019.png

Copyrighted logo, above COM:TOO (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

COM:TOO Japan would seem to be the relevant TOO. I can't really tell from the examples on that page whether this would exceed it or not. I guess so, because it contains somewhat complex geometric figures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Europlus member staes.png

Unused, raster exact duplicate of vector version of map here: File:Euro Plus Pact participants.svg TDL (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Platform 20&21, Guangzhoubaiyun Railway Station, PRDIR 20260214.jpg

This file was initially tagged by TimWu007 as Speedy (db-author) and the most recent rationale was: author. This is not a valid reason for deletion, because of COM:Inuse Lukas Beck (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@L. Beck Removed, and I'm requesting to delete the wrongly uploaded one so that I can re-upload it. Tim (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Is it just a small change? Then you can upload a new version without deleting the old one. Do the two images differ? Then it can be considered whether both images should be kept. In either case, immediate deletion of the image is unnecessary. Lukas Beck (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@L. Beck I forgot to blur the faces of the passersby. Tim (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
If you think, this is neccesarry... Lukas Beck (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@L. Beck Yeah, I don't want to post photos of random strangers' faces online, just as much as I hate being caught on camera myself. Or can I upload a newer version now and have the history deleted? Tim (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
This is possible to. Lukas Beck (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@L. Beck Okay, I've already uploaded. Tim (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete old version as the uploader requested Lukas Beck (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per Lukas. Nakonana (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Convento da Penha e Terceira Ponte com Mar e Vitória ao fundo (edited).jpg

This file was initially tagged by ArionStar as Speedy (speedy deletion) and the most recent rationale was: editor's request; non-improved editing Lukas Beck (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Criterion 7: Original author or uploader (me) requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content. ★ 16:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Removing my request. ★ 03:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lydia Gitachu.jpg

This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no source (No source since). However, User:Martinkarari claims that it was his own work. Please elaborate or keep it. NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thumbnail resolution, missing EXIF, other problematic upload (also claimed to be own work) do not add too much credibility to own work claims. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Zanabus86 (talk · contribs)

At least one of these images uploaded by this editor and claimed as {{Own}} (File:Don Remigio D'Errico e i compagni del seminario.jpg) was taken before 1938. That is so unlikely that it makes "Assume Good Faith" impossible for all of their other images that look to be old.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Good evening! I misunderstood the publication date. I've now corrected them all. Thanks! Zanabus86 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The image is not my own work. It is a historical photograph from the private archive of the D’Errico / Zanaboni family. Zanabus86 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@Zanabus86: Which image? I see that you added "Richiedo la cancellazione del file. Sono il titolare dei diritti d’autore e desidero ritirare il mio consenso all’uso su Wikimedia Commons." in Special:Diff/1167129342 and 'Motivo della richiesta (es. "Sono l’autore e voglio ritirare il file"' in Special:Diff/1167129742.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Resident Evil Requiem - 4ème Trailer.webm

This image or video was uploaded being licensed. But The problem is that the copyright assertion is based off Capcom France's upload, but Capcom USA's upload shows no such free-use license https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXVy4mALHLY. We've had cases like this before where the release was not authorized by the head company Boneless Pizza! (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Uploaded by the copyright holder with a proper license. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep unless the person controlling the Capcom France YT account uploaded them under this license in error (would need clarification probably via reading out per mail). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
It's very unlikely it's an error when Capcom France account does indeed select which licenses they use, and have historically also uploaded videos under non-free licenses (Paris Games Week 2024 videos aren't free licensed Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and 5). ¿For how long has been happening this so-called error now, 8 years? really? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep, see COM:FREEDEPICTION. As TaronjaSatsuma noted, the license is opt-in. It is tucked away in the video settings, meaning the company went out of their way to release it under the CC BY license (and they're a company, they know what a license means).
Similar situation happened with the Minecraft media uploaded by Xbox Mexico, with all files kept. This is a similar scenario. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 19:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dabmasterars: All you have to do is set your default license to a CC license and accidentally leave it there, which is exactly what happened with Cartoon Network India. They switched to a CC default license when they were uploading Covid PSAs and never switched it back. Nosferattus (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but as I want to notice, the very Capcom France account has switched off the CC license with some 2024 videos of a specific event they've decided not to publish under a CC but under a Copyright license.
So, Capcom France is actually using different licenses for different kind of videos, and has used CC before and after 2024. The "mistakenly switching the license" case, even if real in some cases, seems weak here. Indeed, they seem to fully understand how Youtube licenses work. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep. As someone who has uploaded to YouTube before, this is a box you have to intentionally check and it's off by default. It's insane to think an employee would accidentally license their video in this manner. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
@EnvironmentalDoor: That's not true. It's a select list, not a checkbox and it's set to whatever your default license is. And to make it even more confusing, there's no option for "All rights reserved", only "Standard YouTube License" and Creative Commons licenses. Nosferattus (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete I'm sorry, but I must voice my objection and feel this constitutes copyright washing. The original video in question is not released under a free license on either the primary Japanese nor American official Youtube channels. A similar incident occurred with Vogue Taiwan's youtube page. Just because the control is tucked away, does not mean it is the intention of the actual copyright holder, in this case Capcom Japan.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete We've seen this situation before with Vogue Taiwan and Cartoon Network India. National subsidiaries do not have the authority to release IP they don't own under free licenses. If Capcom Japan and Capcom USA say these videos aren't freely licensed, they aren't freely licensed. Despite the false claims above, you do not have to explicitly license each video on YouTube and it is very easy to accidentally leave your default license set to the wrong license, as happened with Cartoon Network India when they were uploading Covid PSAs. Commons:FREEDEPICTION doesn't apply in this case, as Capcom France isn't the copyright owner of these videos. Nosferattus (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The channel did upload videos under the standard YouTube license, as outlined by TaronjaSatsuma. Your other point about the different licenses on the same content makes more sense. The Minecraft video I linked above was uploaded exclusively on Xbox Mexico and Xbox Brazil, licensed CC BY on both channels, which makes that situation mostly cut-and-dried.
This case is more debatable. Another deletion request related to media from Capcom France was kept due to "apparent authority", so this file may still be kept for the same reason. It might also fall under COM:Multi-licensing. Additionally, EnvironmentalDoor is planning on contacting Capcom directly to alleviate any uncertaincies.
Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I will probably need to update the COM:FREEDEPICTION page (which I also created) to mention more specific guidelines about subsidiaries. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
It's been brought up in the discussion Howardcorn33 started that that decision may not have been correct, and even the closer has acknowledged they may reopen it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Vogue and Cartoon Network: Vogue sells pictures (magazines) and Cartoon Network sells videos (cartoons).
Capcom sells videogames: They're releasing under a Creative Commons trailers and promos of their products. It is on their interest to have their promos to spread as freely as possible.
And they've proved they understand how Youtube licenses work by not-releasing under a CC the content they've chose not to. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nomination and discussion, particularly Nosferattus's comments. Capcom France does not automatically have the right to license this content with a freer license than their corporate parent, we need proof that this was purposeful and authorized. We've seen this before. Pending confirmation from Capcom USA and Capcom France that this was authorized and valid, we should delete. As pointed out on the Copyright VP, "apparent authority" is actually not a valid defense in copyright cases in the United States (which was news to me), so, if anything, we should probably start being more careful about situations like this. 19h00s (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Obviously violates the precautionary principle, as I noted with the Phoenix Wright image back when that was nominated for deletion. I feel like those who attempt to keep these probably-copyrighted images and videos are attempting to, as the policy says, "get away with it". Pending direct confirmation from Capcom USA, the video should be removed - "apparent authority" is just not good enough as an argument, as demonstrated in previous discussions. Zxcvbnm (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
 Update Not sure how this wasn't mirrored here, but Howardcorn has sent a letter (as in physical mail) to Capcom Europe and will instead relay the response to another Commons user who will post it publicly (presumably also on Village pump). If the license will be confirmed to be erroneous, the file should get deleted. If not (including no response at all), keep. I still stand by my stance that companies generally know what they're doing, especially with details from TaronjaSatsuma. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 20:00, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "no response at all" should be construed as making it fine. In that case, it can be assumed it was confused as spam and discarded. Unless they double-confirm that people have full permission to use it, it should not be used. To go to an extreme, one could potentially make a commercial fan game using "Creative Commons" images from Resident Evil trailers and release it with attribution, and I have heavy doubts Capcom would be okay with that, in fact I think asserting that's a bit ridiculous. Zxcvbnm (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

To go to an extreme, one could potentially make a commercial fan game using "Creative Commons" images from Resident Evil

No, you can't. And those files are CLEARLY labeled in Wikimedia Commons as containing trademarked content.

Going to a extreme, you could make a book about Resident Evil using "Creative Commons" images from Resident Evil trailers and release it with attribution. Which is perfectly fine.
A trailer being under a Creative Commons does not mean its trademark has been released under any free license. A trailer being under a Creative Commons does not mean the whole character has been released under Creative Commons. Indeed, with the Indian clips was exactly the same scenario: some clips were CC, but that does not affect the trademark or the copyright of the character itself. Leon Keneddy is as much copyrighted as it has always been. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Zx on the grounds that no response at all should not be a license to do what you want with the material when its in this much question. When it comes to copyright we should exercise caution as much as possible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete: Even though I received no response from the mail, I have now come around to believe that the Capcom France videos are not legitimate releases. We have seen too often how regional subsidiary YouTube channels erroneously release valuable IP into CC BY, and I don't believe it to be different this time. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
    It has been stated multiple times in this discussion that the CC BY license is not present on all videos, which means that the subsidiary is very likely aware of the license and has been properly instructed to apply it to specific videos only. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

File:( Resident Evil 2 ) - Trailer de lancement - PS4, Xbox One, PC.webm

This image or video was uploaded being licensed. But The problem is that the copyright assertion is based off Capcom France's upload, but Capcom USA's upload shows no such free-use license https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDPKQbtfVE. We've had cases like this before where the release was not authorized by the head company. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Uploaded by the copyright holder with a proper license. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment for broad discussion, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Resident Evil Requiem - 4ème Trailer.webm. Boneless Pizza! (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Thiruvalluvar statue , Kanyakumari (side profile).jpg

Updated version was added already డా. గన్నవరపు నరసింహమూర్తి (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Speedy keep as long as it's COM:INUSE, and you should link the new version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

File:2024-06-25 John Nosta no The Future of Medicine 2024 em São Paulo, 008.jpg

Screenshot with unknown copyright status. I suspect copyright violation. We have for example file:2024-06-25 John Nosta no The Future of Medicine 2024 em São Paulo, 010.jpg, taken on the same day, which has no such problem. Taivo (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024-06-25 John Nosta no The Future of Medicine 2024 em São Paulo, 022.jpg

File:2018 Idaho attorney general election results map by county.svg

There's already a file for this (File:Idaho Attorney General, 2018.svg). Thomascampbell123 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

please don't nominatate these type of file names for deletion since they use the standardized file naming delete this one instead please https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Idaho_Attorney_General,_2018.svg Putitonamap98 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
This file was uploaded after File:Idaho Attorney General, 2018.svg. I've been told to delete the older files instead of the newer ones. Also, I can just change the name of File:Idaho Attorney General, 2018.svg to "File:2018 Idaho attorney general election results map by county" once this file is deleted. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
@Putitonamap98 See Commons:Deletion requests/File:WA-16-gov-districts.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 Washington Attorney General election by CD.svg for context. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Community Mapping icon - Noun Project 8677.svg

Duplicate of Community Mapping (8677) - The Noun Project.svg Marnanel (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)