Commons:Deletion requests/2026/04/26

April 26

File:HK WTS 黃大仙 Wong Tai Sin 龍翔中心 商場 Temple Mall North shop December 2020 SS2 46.jpg

Copyrighted newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep likely De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
I hope so, but I'm unsure about that because of the photographs. I'll look forward to the closing admin's ruling for some guidance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:HK WTS 黃大仙 Wong Tai Sin 商場南 Temple Mall North shop C生活百貨 January 2022 Px3 02.jpg

non-free 2D works in Hong Kong. Solomon203 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep likely De minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Mostly de minimis, but the one figure on the upper left gives me pause. Still might be de minimis. If not, that figure should be blurred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Matchbox label - Banana Bunch - Czechoslovakia (circa 1960s) - MBP1612882548.jpg

definitely not PD, PD possible after 2030. Copyvio on the (old) Logo of Chiquita Adtonko (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:BND Logo.jpg

Duplicate of File:BND Logo.svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:BND Logo 2010.png

Duplicate of File:Logo of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (2010).svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:BND-Logo.svg

Duplicate of File:Logo of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (2010).svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Matchbox label - African Mask - Empire Centrafricain (circa 1960s) - MBP1521712416.jpg

clearly not PD, PD possible from 2030 Adtonko (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Matchbox label - Hotel Churanov - Czechoslovakia (circa 1960s) - MBP1613506270.jpg

not PD until 2030, 'unknown manufacturer' - the manufacturer is right in the lower righthand corner Adtonko (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:20151105 lyon167.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment advertising can be blurred, pixelated or otherwise removed, and old revision can be deleted Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that could be done, but if it isn't, I believe the image will have to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:20151106 lyon229.jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per COM:De minimis. The advertisement isn't the main focus of the image and it could be blurred if needed. Nvss132 (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Might need to be blurred, but I'm not sure, because of the allowable photos of the Louvre that include the Pyramide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Lyon 9e - Rue Joannès Carret, partie sud 1 (fév 2021).jpg

No freedom of panorama in France A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)


 Keep per COM:De minimis. Nvss132 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Might be, anyway, because the billboard is blurred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Jaume Plensa L'anima della musica (Musiqinin Ruhu).jpg

The sculpture was completed in 2012 by Jaume Plensa (1955–). There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, permission from the sculptor is required A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment According to Plensa's website the sculpture was commissioned by the Fondazione Arvedi Buschini. According to the Italian copyright law in these cases the copyright usually goes to the not-for-profit cultural entity, but, contrary to what happens when something is commissioned by a public entity, it leaves open also the possibility for the author to keep the copyright, so we'd need more informations in order to be able to apply the more liberal terms that the law dictates for works whose copyright is owned by not-for-profit entities (if the copyright was of the Foundation, it'd expire in 2033 in Italy). In the US, if the copyright was owned by the foundation, it'd expire in 2108. Friniate (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Cylindrical billboard with Nokia Lumia 1020 in Tampere 2013.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Finland A1Cafel (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  • I was aware that freedom of panorama in Finland does not cover certain artworks, but I did not realize that this also applies to billboard advertisements such as the one in this image. I understand that, in its current form, the file is likely not acceptable on Wikimedia Commons. Any opinions if it would be acceptable if I uploaded a revised version with a wider view of the street, reducing the prominence of the billboard? The original image is 2160 x 3840 and this image (1,228 × 1,951) is cropped from that. Alternatively, I could upload a version where the billboard content is partially or fully pixelated to address the copyright concerns. Cryonic07 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    I just uploaded a new version of the photo that has wider view of the street and partially pixealated billboard. Does this change the assessment of the case in any way? Cryonic07 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
    •  Keep Yes, I believe it does. The old version may have to be deleted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 25 July 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:R. Budd Dwyer

The PD claims for these images depend on prior publication without a copyright notice or their copyright not having been renewed, but I couldn’t find any evidence of prior publication. No doubt they were created in the timeframes referenced, but it appears they were unpublished. Many appear to be family photos. They all derive from a 2017 Daily Mail article (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4140514/Robert-Dwyer-father-Budd-Dwyer-suicide-TV.html) and appear to have been provided by the subject of the article, who probably owns the copyright to some or all of them.

Rrburke (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  •  Comment With the exception of the picture with Gerald Ford, the photo credit for each of these images reads "©Jim Dirschberger/EightyFourFilms.com". Dirschberger made a documentary about Dwyer and Eighty Four Films is his production company. —Rrburke (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


  •  Keep File:R. Budd Dwyer with Gerald Ford.jpg appears to be the official White House photographer image. --RAN (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment It was definitely taken at the White House, but I couldn’t find any evidence of who the photographer was. When it was published in the Daily Mail, the photo credit read "Courtesy of Robert Dwyer". It looks like it was given to Budd Dwyer by President Ford, so presumably it was taken by a White House photographer: —Rrburke (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination, keep 2 that were likely taken by WH photographer. --Gbawden (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Files in Category:R. Budd Dwyer

Dwyer was never a employee of the White House or any federal agency, and the linked image specifically notes a copyright notice for Dwyer. It could be a White House photo, but I've looked through Category:Contact sheets by the Ford White House (January 1977) and was unable to find this photo. It's possible I just have bad eyesight, but it is on the uploader to prove the image is public domain.

Based5290 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Withdraw Forgot to check for previous deletion requests, sorry. Linked Facebook post does seem to confirm a White House photographer. I've amended the permission and authorship accordingly. Based5290 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Corrected to proper license. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Capital Bank logo.svg

This file was initially tagged by Marihposa as no license (No license since) 6D (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per TOO SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
What do you know about Ghana's COM:TOO? I know nothing, and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ghana is not very helpful but seems to suggest that Ghana is not extremely broad in its allowances for free use of images, so I have doubts that this logo is under whatever their TOO is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Fidelity-bank-icon.png

This file was initially tagged by Marihposa as no license (No license since) 6D (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Per COM:TOO Nigeria: "Under the Copyright Act of 1988 (Chapter C.28, as codified 2004), A literary, musical or artistic work shall not be eligible for copyright unless (a) sufficient effort has been expended on making the work to give it an original character"
I have no idea what "sufficient effort" means or whether it has been given in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:New Yankee Worksop Master carpenter Norm Abram.jpg

Per description, a major focus of this image is the recognizeable nature of the book. The book is non-free. Therefore, this image as a whole is non-COM:DM unlicensed content. We do have a cropped portion of it at File:Norm Abram.jpg that does not contain the non-free part, so that's a viable item. But I think removing the book itself from the whole image leaves an unnusable result: what is the EDUSE of him clearly holding a large white rectangle? DMacks (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've approved a request to blur the book cover. Closing admin can decide if image in that form should be kept or not. Abzeronow (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Current revision. COM:SCOPE should almost always be fulfilled by images of notable people. A reasonably high quality photo of a notable person standing and posing for the camera but not cropped to a headshot is still very much in SCOPE. Based5290 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Definitely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Eugène Bouchard - Médaillé au tennis de table Hapoel International Games CSIT à Israel en 1966.png

Erreur dans la description Toasty79 (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Not a deletion reason, and COM:INUSE. If that's the only problem,  Keep and just edit the description! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Antonio Maddaluno.jpg

Is definitely public domain if and only if it is a "simple photograph" under Italian law. This article seems to imply that a studio photo like this might not be a simple photograph. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Købmand Anton Andersen, Ribe.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:LukeOToole.png

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Lærerkollegiet på Ribe Katedralskole omkring 1918.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:N.C. Willemoes.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Nagybánya, jezsuita templom Nepomuki Szent János-oltára 2025 04.jpg

AI Slopification Dronebogus (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep This is not AI, but a photography taken with camera. Pasztilla (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Paralamas 2012.png

COM:AIIP unless miscategorized Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The image is a screenshot of a YouTube video that is under creative commons license. I used AI to remove the watermark in the top left corner, not to create the people. BrunoGuedes1 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Ibn Adam al-Balaki AI Enhanced.jpg

COM:AIIP Dronebogus (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Dronebogus: ​I have applied the correct license to the image. I have been completely transparent in stating that this image was generated by AI, ensuring full disclosure and honesty regarding its origin. ​In light of these points, I kindly request a formal re-evaluation of the file and ask that the deletion process be halted. ​Furthermore, if you still insist on deleting the file despite these clarifications, what alternative solution do you suggest? Would modifying the image to make it less identifiable or moving it to a different category be acceptable to comply with the policy? ‏‎ʜᴀʀʏᴀᴅ talk 11:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@-Haryad: I am not Dronebogus, but I would suggest you upload original instead. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:纸钞.jpg

New Taiwan dollar banknotes (JS805620UB) are copyrighted, see Commons:Deletion requests/NTD banknotes. Yumeto (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Thaipusam participant Batu Caves Malaysia 1985.jpg

Doubtful authorship and copyright status. The file claims to be "own work" from 1985 but was only uploaded in 2013, with no verifiable evidence that the uploader is the original photographer. Given the age and professional quality of the image, authorship is questionable. Additionally, the fact that the image was taken during the era of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad does not make it public domain. Under Malaysian copyright law, photographs are protected for 50 years after the death of the photographer (if known), not simply based on the date taken. Therefore, the copyright status cannot be confirmed and the "own work" claim is doubtful. ~2026-25445-59 (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Książ Wielki gm. Książ Wielki kościół św. Wojciecha dzwonnica cmentarz ogrodzenie z bramką A 887 M-2.jpg

To jest kopia - File:Książ Wielki gm. Książ Wielki kościół św. Wojciecha dzwonnica cmentarz ogrodzenie z bramką A 887 M.jpg Januszk57 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Марина Флит (Павловск) и Дмитрий Медведев. Вручение госнаграды за 2008 год.jpg

Duplicates an existing file Kotofey2016 (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kotofey2016 Вы бы не могли поставить шаблон {{Duplicate}}? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Jeep safari goes on water (41645459720).jpg

Accidental upload. Юрий Д.К. 09:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Konsolauflager.png

SVG-Datei vorhanden, keine Seite verwendet diese Datei Petflo2000 09:52, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Cold mountains of middle east.jpg

Fake AI image, in use but I have no idea why Dronebogus (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep until replacement, per COM:SCOPE Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment The image was included by the uploader on hi:बहाउल्लाह and then it was replicated uncritically on other wikis. Deltaspace42 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

File:BGR1euro2026gif.gif

Нарушена цветопередача в разрешениях: 240 × 240 пикселей и 480 × 480 пикселей Eurofisher (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I am not sure that it is reason for deletion, because the original has not such problems. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose No valid reason for deletion.--Fornax (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

File:RodelJayme.jpg

{{copyvio|1=Picture is similar or taken from a Facebook post.|source=https://www.facebook.com/snngpage/posts/update-rodel-jayme-nakakulong-ngayon-sa-nbi-dahil-sa-pag-upload-ng-bikoy-ang-tot/2224673514282471/}} Centcom08 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Santa Faz, James Langley.jpg

This file was initially tagged by ~2026-25430-16 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Claiming "own work" for a painting by https://www.jameslangley.com/ Jl FilpoC (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Painting can be found here: https://www.jameslangley.com/clients/faces-of-christ . Are you James Langley, the creator of this artwork, @Jl FilpoC ? -~2026-29778-35 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Unless @Jl FilpoC is the author of the work, then  Delete, since there is no proof (yet) that this work is indeed published under a CC-BY-SA license. If @Jl FilpoC is the author, then they should send an email to COM:VRT confirming that the work is under a free license. SamuelInzunza (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Africa Stub.jpg

out of scope SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep How does deleting our historical images make Commons and the wikiverse in general a better place? Besides that, most of them our covered by Commons:INUSE. Multichill (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete not in use. Deltaspace42 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bripac del aire.jpg

Upscaled patch with poor quality, not in use. It could serve as a base for a superior vector version however. Btrs (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Keep until we have a better version of the same emblem. - Jmabel ! talk 22:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Ramon Magsaysay monument on Mt. Manunggal

The bottom marker speaks for itself: the monument was "blessed" (inaugurated) in 1988. Less than 50 years have passed, and for sure the sculptor hasn't died for more than 50 years. Since there is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines, Wikimedia Commons cannot host freely licensed images of this copyright-protected monument.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Bruksela szczyt UE ws. uchodźców (22224086511).jpg

Is the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland allowed to relicense and redistribute pictures which are stated to have a copyright by the European Union? Btrs (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Marcelo H. del Pilar monument in Malate, Manila

There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. This statue dates from 2005 and was authored by Julie Lluch.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Anna Malginova.jpg

There's no evidence of such a license in Argumenty i Fakty site; also false autorship: file caption in the source says it was taken from depicted person's personal archive. Таёжный лес (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Предлагаю тогда ограничить загруженное изображение пространством ruwiki: там оно будет несвободным изображением, а здесь удалено. Авторство изменить на изображённую персону. Jolt Slater (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Было бы хорошо, но, боюсь, оно не пройдёт по КДИ. Таёжный лес (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Как мне кажется, оно соответствует всем пунктам КДИ. Остаётся лишь оформить шаблоны «Изображение» и «Обоснование добросовестного использования», но они предназначены только для Википедии. Не знаю, можно ли отделить страницу файла в Википедии от Викисклада, или придётся удалять файл с Викисклада и загружать в Википедию новый файл с таким же названием (или, не дожидаясь здесь удаления, загрузить копию в Википедию). Jolt Slater (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Если изображённая персона жива, КДИ нельзя использовать. Lesless (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Я убрал изображение из статьи, указав ссылку на него в Сети. Полагаю, можно удалять, раз других вариантов нет. Jolt Slater (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:ICE1 Mittelwagen mit Sonderbeklebung zur Fußball Europameisterschaft 2024.jpg

Depiction of protected artwork above COM:TOO Germany on a temporary installation and not inconspicuous enough for COM:DM => copyvio. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)


 Comment This could actually be OK per COM:FOP Germany#Permanent (the AIDA decision). --Rosenzweig τ 08:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. While the Kussmund verdict - the Federal High Court ruling on the Aida ship livery - certainly extended the applicability of FOP to movable or moving objects like ships (and other vehicles), it did not void the requirement of a permanent display. The photo shows a wrapping on a train coach that was placed on a (most likely usually out of commission) railway siding for the purpose of serving as a press centre during the UEFA Euro 2024, see https://www.visitfrankfurt.travel/erleben/feste-und-veranstaltungen/uefa-euro-2024-in-frankfurt and the look of the area on Google Maps. These facts give a strong impression of an archetypical temporary exhibition, thus excluding the FOP applicability. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep While this specific picture may show the presentation of this special livery on some siding, trains carrying it ran in regular service on ICE routes. Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but even if that foliation was also used on regular trains, it's still only a temporary livery for a time-limited event of a few weeks and thus excluded from the FOP provisions. It's the same as temporary works on advertising billboards seen during elections for instance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Per Rosenzweig, the legislation was generous in terms of Panoramafreiheit when it comes to advertising on vehicles. The BGH also stated "[...] hat das Gericht in der Pressemitteilung darauf hingewiesen, dass die Panoramafreiheit auch Werke an Fahrzeugen, die bestimmungsgemäß im öffentlichen Straßenverkehr eingesetzt werden, erfasst. Dabei könne es sich etwa um Werbung auf Omnibussen oder Straßenbahnen handeln, die den Anforderungen an Werke der angewandten Kunst genügt." (https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bgh-urteil-izr24715-aida-kussmund-foto-bewegtes-objekt-schiff-urheber-werbung-marke/2). As the train is in public space, I don't have doubts. Also it is said that if that would be a copyright violation, then the freedom of taking photographs would be infringed too far. So this is a clear case to me. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
    I did not challenge the applicability of FOP per se, we Germans are quite lucky in that we've got that High Court ruling allowing FOP for vehicle liveries. But this DR is meant to prove the failure of fulfilling the requirement of a permanent display; which is not voided by the BGH ruling. A short summary is found in COM:FOP Germany#Permanent with Works displayed in shop windows do not fall under § 59(1) due to a lack of permanent display. There is some controversy in the literature over the permanent nature of posters on advertising columns and similar structures. The decoration depicted on the photo is obviously temporary in ist nature, as the event it was made for encompasses a short and, to a casual onlooker, obviously limited time period. One could argue that some ad on a billboard is not obviously time-limited, as that casual onlooker has no way to know how long a client rented the advertising surface. But for sportive events like a football championship, the event times are well publicised and thus well-known. Public art for them is clearly "not permanent" and makes FOP not applicable. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ICE1 Mittelwagen mit Sonderumbau zur Fußball Europameisterschaft 2024.jpg

Probable copyvio derivative. The screen content (the aurora borealis) is certainly above COM:TOO Germany. This picture element would need removal (by blurring or masking), otherwise, the whole still should be deleted. It's not inconspicuous enough to apply COM:DM. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not see a copyright violation in this interior picture of a railway car. --Bigbug21 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
 Keep I agree. The picture on the screen should count as de minimis or can be blurred out. Herbert Ortner (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

File:003a06a.jpg

Indonesia has no freedom of panorama, so I'm pretty sure that this photo of an advertisement which has been graffitied with an anarchist slogan is still under copyright DS (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Most of this looks under COM:TOO Indonesia, with the likely exception of the bright form on the right that could be blurred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Blahaj yn Kernow.jpg

Per COM:TOYS Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Also per the other IKEA toy related items that have ended in deletion
Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2014 July 1 march DSC 3159 (14551041772).jpg

Per COM:TOYS Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Djungelskog bear wearing a cowboy hat and flannel.jpg

Per COM:TOYS Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)


File:Anis Ajina.jpg

Suppression à la demande de l'auteur (Diane AJINA - Dajina) pour raisons personnelles. Dajina (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Cold and Still cool - Andyroofs - panoramio.jpg

Unused personal picture. Nv8200pa (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Weak delete Potentially useful as a photo of a workman on a roof and for the view, but not high quality, and we don't know where the photo was taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ігор Рудник прапор СМ34.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Krd 18:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Apple Cup Charity.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 18:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Btw, this is a photo that could be found online, for even a year earlier than its upload here on Commons. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 18:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Woodpecker finch using a tool to forage on Santa Cruz Island.webm

This file was initially tagged by Ackatsis as no license (No license since) Krd 18:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I am the uploader and this video is entirely my work. This was my first time uploading a video, so not sure what happened with the copyright information. I have added a CC-BY 4.0 license to the media description, as I had originally intended. Ackatsis (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Update: I have just realised the source of the confusion. I accidentally uploaded two versions of this file: here and here. I am happy to have one of them deleted. Thanks. Ackatsis (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

File:LZMA (42868050995).jpg

No value added, cf. COM:PORN Leonry (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep per all the examples in Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/kept Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
@Tm, this dr may be of interest, I seen your comments in other Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete not in use (therefore speedy keep doesn’t apply), not in scope as an artwork (only illustrates the body of work of an artist with a short ptwiki article that doesn’t use any of these images and a very old Russian Wikinews article) and certainly not in scope as independently educational (it doesn’t illustrate computer science, poorly illustrates body painting, and isn’t even a good example of pornography). The only purpose this serves is making the project more NSFW for no good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Oh, dear Dronebogus-Abobus ~2026-43655-65 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-43655-65: Was that the former username of Dronebogus? How do you know?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
user:Dronebogus-Abobus is a vandalism-only account with no relation to me besides stealing my username. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
 Keep As per usual some crucial and important details are ommited those that vote to delete, either do to ignorance or purpose. Besides Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/kept, that has 88 deletion requests almost all opened with same or similar reasons and all closed always with the same rational, that this images are in scope, now there is also Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/09#RfC:_Are_Exey_Panteleev's_"Geekography"_images_in_COM:SCOPE? where, again, the fact that these images are in scope was reinforced, besides the older Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges? and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology, also with the same result that these images are in scope.
And the fact that Wikinews project is going "read-only mode" is mentioned, but is ommited, either do to ignorance or purpose, that "the preservation of existing content" will be kept, but the fact that wikinews is closing is irrelevant, but the fact that wikinews:ru:Звездные_мобильники:_Ексей_Пантелеев exists, wikidata:Q75163697 and pt:Exey Panteleev are relevant.
The reopening of the same deletion requests, with the same old rationales does not change the fact that these images are in scope, several times discussed, several times reaffirmed. Tm (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Isaac and Tm. 7z can compress more than zip. In use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
That is not a realistic educational justification for keeping this. It’s not even obvious that is what this is trying to convey. Dronebogus (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
As you know, it's part of Panteleev's images of the depiction of technology and so on with nudes. I wish people would stop wasting time requesting deletion of these and move on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Panteleev should not be a free pass through all our other policies.
If this was an image by anyone else, would we even be questioning this? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
 Comment If this was an image by anyone else, would we even be questioning this? Depends on by whom. This is often the case with art. If File:Duchamp Fountaine.jpg were by some random person rather than by Marcel Duchamp, we certainly would not be keeping it. If you or I took, and free-licensed, a snapshot equivalent to a typical photo by Nan Goldin, it presumably should not be kept. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
I find that argument weak. Never mind that an image of a urinal or someone in the LGBT community during the AIDs crisis would easily still be educational in its own right; Panteleev is not Duchamp or Nan Goldin. He didn’t force the western art world to reconsider the definition of “art” or document marginalized communities; he won like one award and received some fleeting media coverage for painting smutty computer jokes on women’s bodies. I guess there’s an argument to document the length and breadth of modern art as the sum total of human knowledge, but a) we most definitely do not document the “sum total of human knowledge” since we exclude vast swaths of it as out of scope or incompatible with licensing requirements; and b) why do we need to document this one very minor artist in such exhaustive depth? It reminds me of the jokes about how the most exhaustively documented person in history is probably Chris-chan of all people, rather than Gandhi or Nelson Mandela or Leonardo da Vinci. Commons has chosen to make the face of its artistic archival effort not van Gogh or Michelangelo but Exey Panteleev, whose greatest contribution to the world artistic canon is a boob joke. Dronebogus (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Attempt by globally locked sockpuppeteer to start a new DR. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Sexual photo Mohamed Reda El-Naggar (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

COM:NOTCENSORED, so beside the point. - Jmabel ! talk 06:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Panteleev should not be a free pass through all our other policies.
If this was an image by anyone else, would we even be questioning this? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that calling for deletion of this image is now being given as reason for a global lock! Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: that account is a verified sockpuppet. I'm going to hat this... interesting attempt to start a fresh DR while one was ongoing for the same file. Let's stop commenting in the hatted area. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 14:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep as it is in scope;  Speedy keep as it is in use (“the uploading of small numbers of images for use on a personal user page is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project” — Jeff G. is an active user). Yacàwotçã (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Markov chain (51739608901).jpg

No value added, cf. COM:PORN Leonry (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep per all the examples in Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/kept Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
@Tm, you may be interested in this dr. Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. With Wikinews closing the main argument for this series being in-scope (some article from over a decade ago nobody ever read) has become weaker than ever. Certainly doesn’t qualify for speedy keep, as it’s not in use. Dronebogus (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep As per usual some crucial and important details are ommited those that vote to delete, either do to ignorance or purpose. Besides Category:Exey Panteleev-related deletion discussions/kept, that has 88 deletion requests almost all opened with same or similar reasons and all closed always with the same rational, that this images are in scope, now there is also Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/09#RfC:_Are_Exey_Panteleev's_"Geekography"_images_in_COM:SCOPE? where, again, the fact that these images are in scope was reinforced, besides the older Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_36#Why_does_EVula_still_have_admin_privileges? and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11#Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology, also with the same result that these images are in scope.
And the fact that Wikinews project is going "read-only mode" is mentioned, but is ommited, either do to ignorance or purpose, that "the preservation of existing content" will be kept, but the fact that wikinews is closing is irrelevant, but the fact that wikinews:ru:Звездные_мобильники:_Ексей_Пантелеев exists, wikidata:Q75163697 and pt:Exey Panteleev are relevant.
The reopening of the same deletion requests, with the same old rationales does not change the fact that these images are in scope, several times discussed, several times reaffirmed. Tm (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
This particular image is not in use. I’d bet 50 bucks it will not be used in the next 10 years, and add another 50 every decade after that. Dronebogus (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Isaac and Tm.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Colombian musician and singer SAMPER. Portrait taken by Daniella Benedetti.jpg

Per COM:PCP as likely copyvio. The author in the title cannot be linked to user. Nv8200pa (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Der Roter Helfer 1927 April Page 7.jpg

Unfortunately, I believe that {{PD-Germany-§134}} (works published in Germany by a legal entity under public law before 1966) isn't applicable in this case and that the page contains at least one piece of text that is still copyrighted. According to the PD-Germany-§134 rationale, this is only applicable if the author isn't named. In this case, the authors of the texts are named - Erich Mühsam, Kurt Hiller, Ignaz Wrobel (pseudonym of Kurt Tucholsky), Egon Erwin Kisch, and Meta Kraus-Fessel. One of these, Kurt Hiller, died less than 70 years ago (in 1972), and so Hiller's text is still copyrighted in Germany. Maybe we could keep the page with Hiller's text removed, but I'm not sure about the photos (I doubt that this was their first publication). Also, was the Rote Hilfe a legal entity under public law (Juristische Person des öffentlichen Rechts) at all? I suppose it was a legal entity, but under public law? That would be certain entities with special governmental recognition and supervision. The template is not applicable for legal entities under private law (which are most), only for those under public law. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

What would the copyright tag for legal entities under private law be PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
There is no copyright tag for German legal entities under private law, because no special regulation existed for them, as far as I know. The usual 70 years pma apply. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Well then, since it was published well over 70 years ago and no author is credited for the photographer, then the portraits would at least be public domain. In fact, wouldn't the entire thing be public domain? Just because those individuals contributed to the publication doesn't mean they hold the copyright. That would be vested in Rote Hilfe itself. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
No, that's not how copyright in Germany works. German copyright (and European copyright in general) is always tied to the life dates of the creator, even if the rights of use (Nutzungsrechte) have been transferred to an entity. So, for example, if a publisher holds the rights to an author's work, this still expires 70 years after the author's death. This also applies to works made in an employment relationship - some EU member states know the concept of a Work for hire, but even then the duration of protection is 70 years from the death of the human author, see en:Work_for_hire#European_Union. The rights to Hiller's text in this publication therefore, whoever the rights holder currently is, will expire on January 1, 2043 - in the year that follows the seventieth year after his death. In many cases, this makes things easier than U.S. copyright, and can lead to copyright expiring earlier than it would be in the US where the date of publication is important (for example, something published in 1940 where the author died in 1950 could still be copyrighted in the US - if the copyright registration was renewed -, but not in Germany), but I see that in some cases such as this it's a bit of a hassle. Jointly created works are protected until the last of the creators died more than 70 years ago. - Regarding the photographs, one could possibly argue that they're anonymous works, as the photographers aren't mentioned. But {{PD-anon-70-EU}} which we could think of then also isn't really applicable in Germany, see the template's description - due to a quirk in German law that protects anonymous works published before 1995 for 70 years after the creator's death unless it is positively known that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way (it doesn't suffice that we don't see the name in a particular publication), and how should we know this in this case? Gestumblindi (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, what are you trying to say with that link? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Jamaica 100 Dollar observe.jpg

I'm not hell-bent on deleting this banknote, but is it really free? "Own work" and CC-BY-SA are certainly wrong. Jamaica is missing from Commons:Currency and File:Whether to allow uploading of currency World Map.svg assumes "not OK" for countries with missing information. This is the only modern banknote in Category:Banknotes of Jamaica, the others are historical (I'm not sure about the copyright status of these either, though). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

File:En rektangel i Kristianstad.jpg

No information about the rights concerning both the text and the images. Without proof of authorization, it's a copyvio. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TwoWings, The text is from 7th of December in 1891 when Hjalmar Söderberg (1869-1941) worked at "Nyaste Kristianstadsbladet" in the south of Sweden. The text is a sample from the column "Our town" called "A long and narrow rectangle". The sign with this text is one of eight other signs in Kristianstad. All signs are from an initiative by Kristianstad Municipality in 2012. The text at this sign has no copyright. The author died in 1941. Hesekiel (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
And the drawing is a selfportait of Hjalmar Söderberg from November 1890. Look at File:Självporträtt av Hjalmar Söderberg, 1890.jpg.
Hesekiel (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mahommedan festival at an English mosque 1937-03-24.webp

this image was taken in the UK so I assume their copyright rules apply - we don't know who took this and there appear to be no exact matches on this image anywhere else other than the Auckland Libraries collection. Assuming this was published in the UK around the same time as the Auckland Daily News did, copyright in the UK would have expired around 2007 (after 70 years) however I suspect this picture is still in copyright in the US since they apply a 95 year rule. This should be undeleted in 2032. applecuckoo (he/him) 20:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

you can contact the librarian, more information. Mr.Lazy Guy (💬) 21:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
see (https://kura.aucklandlibraries.govt.nz/digital/collection/photos/id/279396), it clearly says "Usage Rights: No known copyright".
Mr.Lazy Guy (💬) 21:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
yes, I know that, but that's because it doesn't have copyright in the UK (where it was taken) or in New Zealand where the Auckland Weekly News was published. Plus, when applying the 70-year rule for the UK from a general publication year of 1937, as previously mentioned it would have only entered the public domain there in 2007 so the URAA would have applied. Looking at COM:HIRTLE we'd need to wait 95 years from 1937 which is where the year 2032 comes from. Hopefully that explains my copyright concerns - thanks! applecuckoo (he/him) 04:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Optimistic scenario: if it was published in New Zealand within 30 days of when it was taken, then we would know that had to be within 30 days of initial publication, quickly enough to be legally "simultaneous". Then a 50-year rule in New Zealand would have had it out of copyright at the end of 1987, and URAA would not apply, so it would already be PD in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it's that optimistic. Do we even have any proof that this was published in the UK whatsoever? Could have been taken there but not published, that kind of thing happened all the time. Barring evidence of it having been published in the UK, I'd say  Keep PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA I did try a few reverse image searches with relevant keywords to see if it was published in the UK, but I only found this image's entry on the Auckland Libraries website which is the original source of this picture. I guess this is really PD then? applecuckoo (he/him) 07:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Barring other evidence that it was published in the UK, I'd say so. The source credits it to the Auckland Weekly News as the photographer, even. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Pabellón argentino en los arsenales de Venecia (5786886650).gif

Freedom of Panorama in Argentina only covers architecture. Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC) No FoP at all in Italy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but the photo it's not in Argentina. It was taken in Venice, anyway I think there is no FoP in Italy. MinervaAustral (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Even less: in Argentina there is FoP for buildings, in Italy not even that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. Simple text on the sign and a public domain flag. The small photos at the bottom of the image are de minimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
    • @IronGargoyle: if you think the small photos at the bottom are not the point of this, would you mind my blurring them? - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)