Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/26

March 26

File:Historical image of Pavilion in the Yuanmingyuan.jpg

具有完全相同的內容，可以替換這個重複文件的文件（File:北京城外圓明園之凉亭現時破爛.jpg） 颐园居 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AkhmetovAshimjanSuleimenovich.jpg

Did Egemen.kz actually publish this freely? Nurken (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Banknotes of Saudi Arabia

Issued after 1975: see COM:CUR Saudi Arabia.

--Minoa (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep File:SaudiArabiaP20-100Riyals-(1976)-donatedth b.jpg and all from 1976/77 the correct date is before 1978 REAL 💬 ⬆ 03:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually maybe it should be before 1399 AH or 2 Rajab 1399 AH (May 28/29, 1979) the old copyright law states it should use the Hijri calendar for calculation and I don't see nowhere it says it runs to the end of the year (In fact I don't see that in the new one neither) REAL 💬 ⬆ 04:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
If that is the case, then File:SaudiArabiaP20-100Riyals-(1976)-donatedth b.jpg can be kept (as I have not decided on any notes in the subcategories yet). COM:SAUDI ARABIA should also be updated (with a quick reference table in my opinion) to be clearer. I have kind of gotten so used to copyright expiring on 31 December, due to many countries adopting said copyright expiry date. --Minoa (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Βαρβιτσιώτης.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:9787Chinese Garden Wisdom Walk 46.jpg

The description plate tells us that the statue dates to 2009, with an unknown sculptor. This is possibly a corporate authorship, since the Anvil Business Group inaugurated this statue. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. This appears to be the same statue as those deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statues of Confucius in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Primula veris - Sunset Shades 1.jpg

Schlechtes Bild, man sieht nicht viel von den Blüten. Ich habe zwei neue hochgeladen. So sieht sie dieses Frühjahr aus: File:Primula veris - Sunset shades - gelb-rote Blüten 1.jpg. Reichere Blüte, mehr Blätter, keine anderen Pflanzen mit auf dem Bild. Ausgeprägter typischer Habitus einer echten Schlüsselblume. Sciencia58 (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sciencia58: Bitte Verwendung ersetzen. Danke, --Polarlys (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Anarcho-Frontierism flag.svg

This is a fictitious flag apparently created by the uploader to represent what appears to be a non-existent ideology (see 0 results on Google Scholar). As it could mislead readers into thinking this is a real flag for a real ideology, it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. It is also not used on any other Wikimedia project, with the exception of the uploader's own user page. As I believe this falls outside of the project scope, I'm nominating this for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The flag isn't entirely fictitious in the sense of being coined by me as a concept. It has been present in online communities since circa 2020, and has appeared in a few contemporaneous sources with often varying definitions but the same label:
Generally speaking, if the Wikimedia project hosted zero unofficial/fictional flags, for example , I would agree with you, but that is not the case. Xenosystem (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Additional clarification: I recognise that the sources I've given are the furthest thing from scholarly and not "real" in that sense, but again, this returns to the question of where does an ideology become real: Is it still in policy papers or is it in Discord chatrooms?
I suppose that my concern then is that if we are to apply common law precedent to this decision, then a lot of flags would have to be deleted as well, like the example I gave earlier—that specific set of spinning arrows in black and orange has no scholarly source to it—so you'd have to do that fight as well. Xenosystem (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that flag out. I've nominated that now as well. I think an ideology becomes real when it... well, becomes real; as in, when it leaves internet fantasy land and has a material impact on the real world. Whatever this weird idiosyncratic term is, it for sure isn't real. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Fine. Your consistency is admirable. You win. Xenosystem (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Just to be clear, both of those sources (one user-generated, the other a self-published blog) explicitly refer to "anarcho-frontierism" as a "fictional ideology". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Veralima Logo.svg

This is the logo of Veralima, a Colombian sports equipment manufacturer. I think this is either above the threshold of originality or maybe non-free in its home country, Colombia. This is a very bad SVG also. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tanjavur Dance 02.webm

This file was uploaded without sound. This file was also uploaded under the "wrong" User account, but this would be a minor issue. Uploading a new version with sound over this file was not possible for technical reasons (statement said that size of file was to big for server). So the same film was uploaded as new file File:Dance at Brihadisvara Temple during Maha Shivaratri.webm. User:Wuselig and User:Rainer Halama are the same person. The first account used on Commons mainly for uploads of public domain images, and second where attribution to my real life name is wanted Rainer Halama (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Anarcho-Distributism flag.svg

This is a fictitious flag created by the uploader for an apparently non-existent ideology, of which I can find no solid evidence beyond a couple self-published internet creations. It synthesises two unrelated symbols into one that does not appear to have received any real-world usage. As this could mislead readers into thinking this is a real flag for a distinct ideology, I don't think this is realistically useful for an educational purpose. It is also not used on any other Wikimedia project. As I believe this falls outside of the project scope, I am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that an alternate version of this flag exists at File:Twemoji-style anarcho-distributism.svg. I think this should also be deleted for the same reasons. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

File:EliminarMetodoPago.png

planillas ~2026-18891-35 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Магомед Абдурзакович Боташев.jpg

Not own work. Yousiphh (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a Mythological character (2).jpg

Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a Mythological character (1).jpg

Temporary deletion for history cleaning or revision suppression TAPAS KUMAR HALDER (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Elevaciones. Plano N°8.pdf

Archivo pdf resubido como png en otra instancia BiblioJona (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Synthesis Anarchism Flag.png

This is a fictitious flag, originally created by the uploader, to represent so-called "synthesis anarchism". To start with, the term "synthesis anarchism" actually originated on Wikipedia in 2010, where the actual correct terminology has historically been the "anarchist synthesis". Second of all, the flag incorrectly positions mutualism (dubiously identified with the colour orange) as part of the anarchist synthesis; but the synthesis was actually conceived to bring together anarchist-communists, individualists and anarcho-syndicalists, at a time when mutualism was effectively dead as a tendency. Third, and most importantly, this flag does not exist in reality and has never been associated with the anarchist synthesis. As this flag is not realistically useful for educational purposes and as it is not used on any other Wikimedia project, I believe it does not fall under the project scope and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that an alternate variant of the same flag has been uploaded at File:Twemoji-style synthesis anarchism.svg. I think this should also be deleted for the same reasons. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mondial-auto-2022-affiche-portrait.jpg

Unlikely own work. It looks like an official poster. Günther Frager (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Diliegro bts sweet home.jpg

Per COM:DW. The photographer didn't designed the monster costume. Günther Frager (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Odette Ducarre.jpg

Bonjour, c'est image ajoutée est une honte pour le respect de ma grand mère, qui vient de décédée. Je vous en demande sa suppression immédiate. Odette aurait détestée, et nous aussi. Signé : la famille d'Odette Ducarre Zeldemir (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:ריבוע שרבעו חכמים.jpg

Better version uploaded as File:.ריבוע שרבעו חכמים.jpg Poliocretes (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Yamanote line shibuya station-platform - feb20-2015.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


A1cafel, you need to update your knowledge of FoP in Japanese law. In the last one of these of mine you nominated, a user pointed out in 2020 the laws were updated to include the ability to have incidentally captured copyrighted materials in your photos. The point of this wasn't anything copyrighted though, it was to capture the platform and train. Even if you disagree with the interpretation of the new law (not sure how though) asking for files like this to be deleted is too extreme. Calm down, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say. If there is no other choice, I'd gladly digitally obscure any parts of the image that is triggering you if it is deemed important to do that. So please slow down the random attacks on images like this. Just talk to me and other users about censoring parts you think offend the laws, and if that's true we can edit out those parts instead of losing all historical record by deleting the whole thing. Know what I mean? So how about just add discussion to talk pages if you see parts of an image you don't like or something. Nesnad (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bytteboxen swap station Givebox Aarhus Denmark 02.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


This is a picture of a council box on a street where people can leave and take stuff. A givebox. It is not an artwork. Why has this been nominated for deletion?
~ ~ ~ ~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out what the problem with this image (and related images) that have been nominated for deletion. Is it because there is a sign in the image?
If yes, I would not understand it to be covered by FOP for 2D Images i Denmark because:
- it is not central to the image (which is why I didn't even think of it when I first replied)
- it is incidental to the image. It is mentioned in the Alt Text description for the visually impaired because it is part of the scene same as the sky, weather, surrounding area.
- it is not a permanent sign. 'Bytteboxen er tilbage!' is Danish for 'The Swap Box Is Back'. The givebox is not a permanent structure. The council puts them at locations around the city during Spring and Summer months. The sign is moveable, not mounted. It is temporary, put there when they re-erect the box somewhere after it has been removed.
A temporary sign that is incidental in the image - I can't see the specific violation that would require deletion here?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bytteboxen swap station Givebox Aarhus Denmark 08.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


This is a picture of a council box on a street where people can leave and take stuff. A givebox. It is not an artwork. Why has this been nominated for deletion?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out what the problem with this image (and related images) that have been nominated for deletion. Is it because there is a sign in the image?
If yes, I would not understand it to be covered by FOP for 2D Images i Denmark because:
- it is not central to the image (which is why I didn't even think of it when I first replied)
- it is incidental to the image. It is mentioned in the Alt Text descricption for the visually impaired because it is part of the scene same as the sky, weather, surrounding area.
- it is not a permanent sign. 'Bytteboxen er tilbage!' is Danish for 'The Swap Box Is Back'. The givebox is not a permanent structure. The council puts them at locations around the city during Spring and Summer months. The sign is moveable, not mounted. It is temporary, put there when they re-erect the box somewhere after it has been removed.
A temporary sign that is incidental in the image - I can't see the specific violation that would require deletion here?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per COM:De minimis. Nvss132 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bytteboxen swap station Givebox Aarhus Denmark 09.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


Nominated for deletion because "No FoP for 2D works in Denmark"?
This is a picture of a council box on a street where people can leave and take stuff. A givebox. It is not an artwork. Why has this been nominated for deletion?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out what the problem with this image (and related images) that have been nominated for deletion. Is it because there is a sign in the image?
If yes, I would not understand it to be covered by FOP for 2D Images i Denmark because:
- it is not central to the image (which is why I didn't even think of it when I first replied)
- it is incidental to the image. It is mentioned in the Alt Text descricption for the visually impaired because it is part of the scene same as the sky, weather, surrounding area.
- it is not a permanent sign. 'Bytteboxen er tilbage!' is Danish for 'The Swap Box Is Back'. The givebox is not a permanent structure. The council puts them at locations around the city during Spring and Summer months. The sign is moveable, not mounted. It is temporary, put there when they re-erect the box somewhere after it has been removed.
A temporary sign that is incidental in the image - I can't see the specific violation that would require deletion here?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per COM:De minimis. The poster is small and the subject of the image is the box. Nvss132 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bytteboxen swap station Givebox Aarhus Denmark 05.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


Nominated for deletion because "No FoP for 2D works in Denmark"?
This is a picture of a council box on a street where people can leave and take stuff. A givebox. It is not an artwork. Why has this been nominated for deletion?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out what the problem with this image (and related images) that have been nominated for deletion. Is it because there is a sign in the image?
If yes, I would not understand it to be covered by FOP for 2D Images i Denmark because:
- it is not central to the image (which is why I didn't even think of it when I first replied)
- it is incidental to the image. It is mentioned in the Alt Text description for the visually impaired because it is part of the scene same as the sky, weather, surrounding area.
- it is not a permanent sign. 'Bytteboxen er tilbage!' is Danish for 'The Swap Box Is Back'. The givebox is not a permanent structure. The council puts them at locations around the city during Spring and Summer months. The sign is moveable, not mounted. It is temporary, put there when they re-erect the box somewhere after it has been removed.
A temporary sign that is incidental in the image - I can't see the specific violation that would require deletion here?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Bytteboxen swap station Givebox Aarhus Denmark 04.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Denmark A1Cafel (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2026 (UTC)


Nominated for deletion because "No FoP for 2D works in Denmark"?
This is a picture of a council box on a street where people can leave and take stuff. A givebox. It is not an artwork. Why has this been nominated for deletion?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am still trying to work out what the problem with this image (and related images) that have been nominated for deletion. Is it because there is a sign in the image?
If yes, I would not understand it to be covered by FOP for 2D Images i Denmark because:
- it is not central to the image (which is why I didn't even think of it when I first replied)
- it is incidental to the image. It is mentioned in the Alt Text description for the visually impaired because it is part of the scene same as the sky, weather, surrounding area.
- it is not a permanent sign. 'Bytteboxen er tilbage!' is Danish for 'The Swap Box Is Back'. The givebox is not a permanent structure. The council puts them at locations around the city during Spring and Summer months. The sign is moveable, not mounted. It is temporary, put there when they re-erect the box somewhere after it has been removed.
A temporary sign that is incidental in the image - I can't see the specific violation that would require deletion here?
~~~~ Ciara Ní Riain (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per COM:De minimis. The poster is small and the subject of the image is the box. Nvss132 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:NGC 2243 DSS.jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm Lithopsian (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:NGC 2243 DSS.jpg

DSS is copyrightː https://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:คำให้การชาวกรุงเก่า.pdf

The same content file and publication year already exist.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:คหก_กรุงเก่า_-_๒๔๕๗_a.pdf and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:คหก_กรุงเก่า_-_๒๔๕๗_b.pdf Peatlnwza (talk) 14:55, 26 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:Charleroi - station Janson - Jeremiah - 01.jpg

Panorama freedom possibly wrongly applied. The photo is taken in an underground metro station. It is unclear if the metro station qualifies as a "public space". See discussion at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:De_kroeg#Auteursrechten_/_Bronvermelding_tekening_Hermann_op_NOS.nl (in Dutch, might become archived) IIVQ (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop speculation, if you don't know, do not act but ask first. Stations are certainly considered to be a public space. Romaine (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest to add all images in Category:Comic strips in the Janson metro station (Charleroi) to this request. Ellywa (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

My two questions about the Begian Freedom of Panorama:
In Dutch
  1. Wat is een openbare plaats? Ik zie er geen definitie van in de Belgische wet. Dit is een glijdende schaal, waar vaak discussie over is op Commons. ::Wat zijn de grenzen van de panoramavrijheid in België?
  2. Mag je een foto van een striptekening die daar in de muur op een (mogelijk) openbare plaats is aangebracht zodanig bijsnijden dat de hele omgeving ervan wegvalt. IANAL, maar volgens mij mag dit volgens de Belgische wet, daar staat namelijk dit:
de reproductie en de mededeling aan het publiek van werken van beeldende, grafische of bouwkundige kunst, die zijn gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, indien de reproductie of de mededeling gebeurt van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt.
Onderstreping door mij. Volgens mij betekent "zoals het zich aldaar bevindt" dat je bij het publiceren van een foto, de omgeving van het kunstwerk moet laten zien. Deze foto, van alleen de striptekening, zou niet gepubliceerd mogen worden onder een vrije licentie.
Translated into English
  1. What is a public place? I see no definition of it in Belgian law. This is a sliding scale, which is often a subject of debate on Commons. Is a metro station public?
  2. What are the limits of freedom of panorama in Belgium? May you crop a photo of a comic drawing affixed to a (possibly) public place in such a way that the entire surrounding environment disappears from it? IANAL, but I think Belgian law does not permit this, as it states the following:
the reproduction and communication to the public of works of plastic, graphic or architectural art designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places, provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there. (Per Commons:Belgium#FOP)
Emphasis mine. In my opinion, "as it is found there" means that when publishing a photo, you must show the surroundings of the artwork. Is this cropping of the comic drawing alone, acceptable?
Regards, Ellywa (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
No this is not a sliding scale, a station is a public space. In Belgian law it only says the photographed subject needs to be depicted as it is on location. Romaine (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)


Kept: station = public space, it is depicted as it is on site. --Romaine (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Charleroi - station Janson - Jeremiah - 01.jpg

Possible copyright violation. My collegue Romaine closed the DR far too quickly imho. This needs discussion. Please note my comments on the previous deletion request. Ellywa (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You do not provide any grounds for deletion, only questions that indicate you do not know what the copyright situation in Belgium is. The copyright situation in Belgium is clear for works permanently placed in the public sphere like these. Romaine (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Indeed I am asking questions because the Belgian law is recent, and based on the queston of IIVQ. Firstly what does "openbare plaats" exactly mean? Please provide a source for a definition. And secondly, what is allowed with the photo. What does "zoals het zich daar bevindt" mean? Can it be isolated from the environment and can it be changed like other PD or CCBY photos? I now did find a source discussing this aspect. I am interested in opinions based on sources or "jurisprudentie", other than "trust me I was involved". Ellywa (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I am no expert on this, but how do we know this photo (of something that would under any other circumstance be copyright protected work) was actually taken in a public space? We don't see it. We just have to assume and believe the information provided. The frame of this photo is way too narrow. The way the photo is presented here is clearly not in spirit of (copyright) legislation. Does anybody have additional proof this particular drawing as photographed was indeed hanging in that place? Labrang (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Ellywa and I raised this question on The Village Pump. IIVQ (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Please note this LinkedIn article about this ruling (in French). It seems that in that case, a mural, was allowed to reproduce on an advertisement, but that it was not supposed to be altered. This is an interpretation of "as it is found there". If such a photo cannot be altered, it can not be used on Commons with free licensing. PD images can be changed at will. Ellywa (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
@Ellywa I think it is a normal compliance to the Berne three-step test. Most image manipulation methods disfigure and harm the integrity of the work. Even the German FoP, the very first panoramafreiheit rule in the world, only allows limited types of image modifications; see COM:FOP Germany#Prohibition of alteration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Parkjunwha.jpg

Unused file, deleted at the author’s request. Puddink (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Needcompany.jpg

Unused file, deleted at the author’s request. Puddink (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Radiofomix-logo.png

Out of scope - logo of non notable organization. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Wakefit Logo.jpg

Old logo. RanjitRajR (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Centre Jean Abadie (hôpitaux de Bordeaux) en 1956.jpg

il est remplacé par un fichier avec une meilleure photo : Centre neuropsychiatrique Jean Abadie en 1956 (hôpitaux de Bordeaux).jpg Psychotrotinette (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Damásdi Domokos Csaba Ősfája 01.jpg

Unclear origin per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damásdi Domokos Csaba Ősfája.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

This file is my own work. I created this family tree (ősfája) myself.

The content is based on family research, and the graphical design was also made by me. Therefore, I am the author and I have the right to publish it.

If needed, I can provide further details about the creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damásdi Domokos Csaba (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The graphical elements (including the coat of arms and decorative style) were created or assembled by me.

No external copyrighted images were used, or only elements that are in the public domain.

The work was created using graphic software (e.g. Photoshop). I confirm that I am the creator of this work.

The entire composition, including the graphical layout, decorative elements, and coat of arms style, was created and assembled by me using Adobe Photoshop.

No copyrighted external images were used, or only public domain elements.

There are multiple versions because I uploaded corrected or improved variants of my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damásdi Domokos Csaba (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Damásdi_Domokos_Csaba Please upload possible further corrections as updates of the same file. If "further details about the creation" are available, please provide them. If you have the "source code" of this image, then it would be preferable to upload it in SVG format. So far this looks like "in dubio pro reo" ie  Keep. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:一行禪師 越南佛教臨濟宗第四十二代法嗣.jpg

Edited version of (as far as I'm aware) copyrighted photograph, seen here as DM of the altar File:Verdelot monastère vietnamien P1070508.JPG TansoShoshen (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Spanish road (in red).png

brussels is a few hundreds of km north of where it should be ~2026-19118-05 (talk) 18:37, 26 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.

Files uploaded by Luxferuer (talk · contribs)

Derivatives of photos of unknown copyright status, fake Creative Commons licenses and/or own works claims.

Romano1981 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Уважаеми господине, повечето фотографии съм снимал или лично, или от общодостъпни витрини, разположени на обществени места. Някои са от архивите на Дирекция на музеите в Копривщица, които също са обществено достояние. Към някои съм указал източника с уточнението, че авторът е неизвестен. Други са снимани от мен некролози, също сложени на обществени места. Luxferuer (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi, Romano1981, the files are really very badly uploaded. The copyright of many of them is very questionable, but there are also many photos of Bulgarian personalities from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which are certainly under a free license due to the many years that have passed (100 - 150). Unfortunately, the user Luxferuer described them in a completely incorrect way. I'v tried to explain him the mistakes. I corrected the description of some photos: File:Vulko Kurtovich.jpg - the artist died in 1877, File:Евлампия Векилова.tif, File:Каблешкови.jpg, File:Георги Тиханек.tif. I wanted to show him how to upload them. I think the deletion template can be removed from them. Unfortunately, there are so many, I hope you will give the user some time to make corrections because there are important for Bulgarian history (I really hope he understands how upload correct). Best regards, --Randona.bg (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
They have at least a week to fix what can be fixed. And some of the these should have been nominated for speedy deletion rather than regular one. Romano1981 (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

'I would like to know why the photos were massively deleted when, after the latest corrections, it is obvious that many of them are very old (some even more than 100 - 150 years old) and with an unknown author? Randona.bg (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:David Torozoff captured arriving at the Festival of Cinema in Rome.png

I'm David Torozoff and this photo of me was not at the Festival of Cinema in Rome ~2026-18817-66 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:«Белый дом»1757 г.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1959 sculpture and protected with copyright in USA until 2055 (95+1 years from death). The sculptor ru:Писаревский, Лев Моисеевич died in 1974 and the statue is copyrighted in Russia until 2049 (74+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Permira Logo RGB Blue.png

Duplicate of File:Logo of Permira.svg. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Judge Matthew L. Garcia.png

This might actually be public domain if it's an official work of the U.S. government, but the user uploaded it as their 'own work' and has no link to the actual source. Malvoliox (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Парк Победы.Физк1.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1950s statue and protected with copyright in USA until 2040s (95+1 years from publication). Sculptor ru:Янсон-Манизер, Елена Александровна died in 1971 and the statue is copyrighted in Russia until 2046 (74+1 years from death). Taivo (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Español: Las leyes rusas -como las de muchos otros países- son una cabronada. En España sabemos vivir mejor y más tranquilos, sin preocuparnos por lo que podemos hacer o no hacer en un espacio público
Just by walking, we have rights, not duties--Lmbuga (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Photo of Life Magazine.jpg

Photo is originally credited to pioneer freefall photographer Carl Boenish in the February 4, 1972, issue of Life magazine. Uploaded photo appears to be a print of the original. There's a better version that was uploaded in 2019 to skydivemag.com. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Romza Russicum.jpg

Just because the image of the icon is the own work of the publisher, that does not necessarily mean the icon itself is in the public domain. Bl. Leonid was only Beatified in 2001, meaning the icon could well have been made around that date. FredMcKinley (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:William of Ockham.png

On the talk page it is argued that the stained glass was made in 1985 by Lawrence Lee. In that case it would not be public domain, and there is nothing on this page to imply that Lee has released the image under a licence. The glass is in a Church, and thus likely on private land, so it could well be that this picture cannot be on Wikimedia FredMcKinley (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Stained glass is a work of artistic craftsmanship, which is allowable in UK freedom of panorama (this is in Surrey). UK also has a very broad scope of indoor and outdoor spaces which allow FoP. A church would qualify. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Eveline Cosmetics.png

Plik do usunięcia, ponieważ zawiera duplikat obrazu, który został dodany innego użytkownika wcześniej DariaDX (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Casa natal de José María Pino Suárez.jpg

El archivo afirma que el edificio mostrado es la casa natal de José María Pino Suárez, pero no proporciona ninguna fuente fiable que respalde esta identificación. Fuentes periodísticas fiables indican que la ubicación exacta de su casa natal en Tenosique es incierta y objeto de controversia. Además, en la imagen no se observa ninguna placa conmemorativa ni señalización oficial visible que permita verificar la identificación del inmueble. Dado que el valor enciclopédico de la imagen depende de esta afirmación no verificada, el archivo constituye investigación original y puede resultar engañoso. Solicito su eliminación. JoaquinMillet (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hola Joaquín, no es una investigación original sino proviene de una afirmación que está en una placa en el mismo. Independientemente de esta información, te informo que la razón por la cual quieres propones eliminar esta foto no está dentro de las condiciones de la política. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)