Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/20

January 20

File:Merlin Sandmeyer at Southside Festival 2025 (57303).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete this + other photos nominated by user, legitimate uploader's request, photos not in use ~TheImaCow (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
    •  Keep all per IronGargoyle, others. We don't owe a courtesy deletion for noteworthy photos uploaded last year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)

File:Merlin Sandmeyer at Southside Festival 2025.jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (72921).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:MonchiAndKuddelMannheim2018.jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no valid reason for deletion. This photo has been on Commons for several years, and all recognizable people seem to be the performers who appeared and are already in the public eye anyway. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (62476).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (99183).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (58396).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (71156).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025 (80397).jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan Böhmermann at Southside Festival 2025.jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Within scope image of notable individual. Not recently uploaded. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:CampinoMannheim2018withBreiti.jpg

I took this photo. I want to delete all concert photos that show people. Thank you! KatastrophenKommando (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep. I'm sorry, but too bad. Licenses are irrevocable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Chahamanas before 1192.jpg

This map is very wrongz the ranthambore is located in rajasthan not madhya pradesh Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)


File:IMF-Seal ENG RGB.svg

Current licensing is clearly bogus. Since this is a highly-used file, I'm bringing it here instead of tagging for speedy deletion in case there is some basis for this to be kept under some other license. Jay8g (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The IMF is headquartered in Washington, DC, so the question is whether their logo is under COM:TOO US, as the organization was founded in 1944, so it is presumably not old enough to be in the public domain. The text and shapes are clearly uncopyrightable in the U.S., nor can you copyright simple world maps. So I believe the question is about the branch and leaves, and though I'd be happy to be wrong, I think that they are irregular enough to be copyrightable. Ergo,  Delete, and Wikipedias that have fair use should upload this logo locally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
There's some background available on the logo here: . The initial design was created by the US Treasury department in 1946. The websites mentions trademark of the logo but doesn't say anything regarding copyright unfortunately. Nakonana (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Oluwaseyi M Omotoso Hue logo.png

Updates from owner, uniformity. Hotrainfall (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:IAF crest.png

Current license is clearly bogus. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BRO Flag.svg. Jay8g (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Licensing has been updated. Kindly remove the deletion tag. I apologise for not using the correct license and assure you to be more careful next time. HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Licensing is correct with proper source given therefore the file should not be deleted. I propose removal of the nomination tag Thundering.Ninja (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
The source image allows to remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original and must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
The licensing is same as the the Source mentioned, I hereby request you to remove the deletion nomination HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
You are not the copyright owner of this -- the copyright owner is the Indian government, and there is no evidence that they have agreed to release this under a free license. Jay8g (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
The copyright holder of the work is the Government of India but it can be reproduced and published as it is comes under edict of government (Template:EdictGov-India/en). Soap Boy 1 (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Check the source stated. The source image has allowed to republish the work with credits and distribution under the same license.
Also Edicts of the Government of India published prior to 1 January 1966 are public domain and Indian Air force was formed on 26 January 1950 with the current emblem present since then HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Kindly remove the nomination tag. Edicts of the Government of India published prior to 1 January 1966 are public domain and the Indian Air force was formed on 26 January 1950 with the current crest/badge adopted in 1950 and present since then. Therefore this is free of copyright. Read {{EdictGov-India}} HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Logo of the air force is more than 60 years old so it technically have entered public domain according to Template:PD-India. The logo was originally issued by the College of Arms in August 1940 - File:Indian Air Force heraldic badge.jpg but was tweaked to its present form after India became a republic in January 1950. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes exactly. Correct licensing has also been updated. HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
 Comment, see additional discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 103#Licensing Review Request - File:IAF crest.png. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Indian Navy Insignia (2022).svg

Current license does not make sense. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:BRO Flag.svg. Jay8g (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The copyright holder of the work is the Government of India but it can be reproduced and published as it is comes under edict of government (Template:EdictGov-India/en). Soap Boy 1 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Also under Template:GODL-India all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.
The file is shared by the government here through Press Information Bureau - https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1880977&reg=3&lang=2 and the uploader has modified it, which is allowed according to the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of the Government of India. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Emblem of the navy is more than 60 years old so it technically have entered public domain in India according to Template:PD-India. The logo was originally issued before 1947 - File:Crest of the Royal Indian Navy (1947).svg (1) but was tweaked firstly after India became a republic in January 1950 - File:Indian Navy Insignia.svg and recently in September 2022 - File:Indian Navy Insignia (2022).svg when new naval ensign was unveiled - File:Naval Ensign of India.svg (2). Soap Boy 1 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
The IN crest consists primarily of standard heraldic elements (Ashoka lion capital, shield, anchor, ribbon, and text) in a straightforward arrangement with no significant creative expression. It falls below the U.S. threshold of originality required for copyright protection (see Commons:Threshold of originality and examples like File:United States Army Central CSIB.svg). As such, it is not copyrightable in the United States, so URAA restoration does not apply. Combined with its PD status in India (as a government edict/emblem over 60 years old), the file qualifies for PD-India and should be kept. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The current emblem was designed in early 2020s, so no point in discussing earlier designs here. Even if it still was relevant, there is a lot of difference between a simple "A" and this naval crest. The file neither qualifies for COM:TOO US nor COM:TOO India not PD-India. Shaan SenguptaTalk 16:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Noreaykh (talk · contribs)

Literally the same file as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sa Majesté Sisowath Monivong.jpg

TansoShoshen (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: already deleted by Ziv. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  • I'm busy not knowing your deleted, Details majesté Sisowath Monivong is incorrect, this is Cambodia King Sisowath, Sisowath Monivong is he son, My upload from Cambodia national museum before this painting return to France. Rfi is different color of Camera capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreaykh (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    If you ever bothered to read the DR, you would know that this file was named incorrectly. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
    Incorrect nomenclature is not a deletion reason, though; see Commons:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek Right, which is why the file was deleted not for that reason, but because copyright had yet to lapse. Just because the file was uploaded now with the name of the correct king doesn't mean that it is suddenly free from copyright. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Got it. And agreed, no it doesn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Noreaykh (talk · contribs)

Unknown base map source, and unspecific origin of border data. If not copvio, COM:EDU is questionable at best.

The following is from another account of the uploader:

TansoShoshen (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Noreaykh (talk · contribs)

Suspected AI-generated works, previous AI-generated works uploaded by same uploader have the same file name have been deleted. Metadata doesn't confirm nor deny suspicions.

TansoShoshen (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Supernova remnant IC443 (SHO filters) - Flickr - nicolas.glade.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krd 05:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. No reason to doubt PD-mark. `IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Photos of Syngman Rhee and Mrs Rhee by LIFE Magazine 1.png

Copyright for all 1950 issues of Life Magazine were renewed in 1978, so this is still under copyright in the US and should beomce PD in 2045, see: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058364194?urlappend=%3Bseq=69%3Bownerid=13510798887807192-73 Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Photos of Syngman Rhee and Mrs Rhee by LIFE Magazine 2.png

Copyright for all 1950 issues of Life Magazine were renewed in 1978, so this is still under copyright in the US and should beomce PD in 2045, see: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058364194?urlappend=%3Bseq=69%3Bownerid=13510798887807192-73 Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Photos of Syngman Rhee and Mrs Rhee by LIFE Magazine 3.png

Copyright for all 1950 issues of Life Magazine were renewed in 1978, so this is still under copyright in the US and should beomce PD in 2045, see: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058364194?urlappend=%3Bseq=69%3Bownerid=13510798887807192-73 Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Henry Chung DeYoung at School Party.jpg

This photo most likely comes from the University of Southern California collection, which has this as being taken in either 1911 or 1913, and states it's "in copyright". I'm inclined to believe it should be deleted. https://impa.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF1O6TVU4A?&WS=SearchResults&Flat=FP Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Why does it being taken in 1911 or 1913 make you inclined to believe it's really still under copyright? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I was thinking that given the author is unknown and that this picture has afaik not been published before, it would still be copyrighted and fall under create + 120 years, plus 120 years haven't yet passed since 1911/1913 so PD-old-assumed can't be used. I'm open to other interpretations though Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Iirc the United States have a rather interesting understanding of qualifies as being "published", as in: when the photographer hands over the photo to the person who issued the photo then said photo is considered "published". (: Under copyright law, publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending.) Nakonana (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Batik Air PK-LBS damage.jpg

Although this file is in the public domain in Indonesia, that alone isn't enough. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States: "Note that all files hosted on Wikimedia Commons must either be in the public domain in the United States, or available under a free license valid in the United States. This is in addition to any public-domain/licensing requirement dependent on country of origin." This file isn't in the public domain in the United States. Looking at COM:TAG United States, none of the PD-US tags apply to this file.

Template:Attribution would not apply. The template states: "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." The NTSC allows redistribution, but it does not state that their works are allowed to be used "for any purpose", nor does it state that "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The following have also been nominated for deletion:
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep since when are government works copyrighted in the US? why would an foreign goverment copyright their works in the US when their own laws state that their works are not copyrighted?? nonsense, you'd have to delete 50k files in Category:PD Indonesian Government + various other countries. ~TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
See: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis mine). Commons:Licensing "is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone must follow. [...]" (italics mine). Keeping this file would go against Wikimedia Commons' policy and standard. I'm going off what Commons:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons' official policy, is saying. I'd say it's pretty worrying that pretty much nobody has bothered to comply with this policy despite the requirements for PD being at the top of one Wikimedia Commons' major policies. All foreign public domain works must include a PD-US tag. And what PD-US tag would apply in this case? None. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Just to add, foreign works can be in the public domain in the country of origin but copyrighted in other countries. It's not a matter of a country copyrighting their work in other countries, it's just that different countries have different copyright laws. In this case, we have to follow US copyright laws as Wikimedia Commons is based in the US. If Wikimedia Commons were based in Indonesia, these files would be free to use as they are in the public domain there; as Commons is based in the US, we have to follow their laws (using the tags at COM:TAG United States). Here are actual copyright laws regarding public domain:
  • Per Hamilton College : Public Domain Outside the U.S. – Copyright laws of other countries can be very different. A work that is in the public domain in the U.S. is not necessarily in the public domain outside of the U.S., and vice versa. […] In other words, if you intend to use the work only within the U.S. you should make a public domain determination based on the U.S. copyright law. […]
  • Per Cornell University : Foreign works published after 1928 are likely to be still under copyright in the US because of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) modifying the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). […]
  • Per the Dominican University of California : If you are in the U.S. and you are trying to determine the copyright status of a foreign created work, then the first presumption is that U.S. law applies to make that determination.
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
What you're saying would be valid if you were talking about photos that are privately copyrighted in Indonesia, but if the Indonesian government owns the copyrights and says it's public domain, you're saying they could still sue people for using the photos outside of Indonesia? If that's the case, you need to cite Indonesian law allowing the Indonesian government to do that, as the Indonesian government is bound by their own laws. This seems like an absurd deletion request. Commons has onerous licensing rules, but that isn't a reason for Commoners to tie themselves into knots to find imaginary pretexts to delete files for no good reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:917ph from mehansa.com

These files are potentially copyvios, but would have to check each one. The source site isn't unfortunately around and IA didn't archive every page, so it may be impossible to find the source link for every image. Didn't seem the mehansa.com sourced their images . --Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Meant to say didn't seem mehansa.com sourced their images. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Majk1987r (talk · contribs)

Credited to Michael Tomasz - needs VRT

Gbawden (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Early uploads by the user (e.g., File:Kamienica Dawida Sendrowicza.jpg) self-identify as Michał Tomczak which links to User:Majk1987r. I do not see anything suspicious. I think we should assume good faith here. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep I see no reason to suspect that the uploads are not from the author. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Michał = Michael = Mike. If you write "Mike" as it is pronounced in English but using the Polish writing/phonetic system then you'd write it as "Majk" — it has the same pronunciation as the English "Mike". The uploader is self-identifying as Michał with their username. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:MAGNUM McCurry NYC14147.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McCurry Not a NIST employee. Based5290 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Portion of a commencement address by Lurleen Wallace at Judson College.ogg

"Copyright, Alabama Department of Archives and History. Donated by WSFA, https://www.wsfa.com." from linked source Based5290 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Libre Franklin Wikipedia.jpg

Superseded by superior SVG version, this version is not in use (anymore). Btrs (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Badge of the Indian Air Force.png

Current license is clearly bogus. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:BRO Flag.svg. Jay8g (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Also:

The copyright holder of the work is the Government of India but it can be reproduced and published as it is comes under edict of government (Template:EdictGov-India/en). Soap Boy 1 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
An image is not an edict so that template is irrelevant, and per Template:GODL-India, "The license does not cover the following kinds of data: ... c. names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s)". Jay8g (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
But the logo of the air force is more than 60 years old so it technically have entered public domain according to Template:PD-India. The logo was originally issued by the College of Arms in August 1940 - File:Indian Air Force heraldic badge.jpg but was tweaked to its present form after India became a republic in January 1950. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
You are right it does not cover image but it covers insignias, crests, coat of arms. The licensing is for 60 years for all government works including the insignias, state symbols etc. The following symbols/insignias have entered Public Domain since they were published before 1966. Read Template:PD-India it clearly mentions government works. HunterdeltaX15 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Barry Goldwater Memorial (51814405411).jpg

The statue was completed in 2004 by Joe Beeler (1931–2006). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2077 A1Cafel (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)


(1931–206) SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Should be 2006. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Zunda Towers

The building was completed in 2016 by Helmut Jahn (1940–2021). Sadly, there is no freedom of panorama in Latvia. The copyright term of the country lasted for 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2092.

A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Zunda Towers is the highest modern building in Riga, so it can be watched from very different places and becomes a part of photo images, unless not these towers are main subject of photo. May be some photos can be left, if damage (crop) the part of these towers on the photo? — Olgerts V (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 06:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Files in Category:Zunda Towers

No FOP in Latvia. DM does not apply - these are high quality photos when viewed at max resolution the building is clear as day

Gbawden (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per COM:De Minimis SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete per nom, and shouldn't the category also be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Allow Me (Portland, Oregon)

The statue was completed in 1983 by John Seward Johnson II (1930–2020). There is no freedom of panorama in the United States for non-architectural works. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2091

A1Cafel (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)


Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allow Me in December 2013.jpg and File talk:Allow Me, Pioneer Courthouse Square.jpg. -Another Believer (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Commons:Hirtle chart#Architectural works SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per SomeFancyUsername. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
If these images are kept again, can we put a template on Category:Allow Me (Portland, Oregon) to prevent future nominations? -Another Believer (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lordo'Web (talk · contribs)

All files falsely claim to be the author's own work. No information is provided about the true authors, no source links are given, and consequently, the licenses are incorrectly set. The images could probably be kept with proper source attribution and correct licenses.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 10:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Delete Most of these are images that are not remotely plausible for a living person to have created. The licenses are thus false and given the page creator's lack of grasp of copyright (see , , ), I do not believe even plausible own work claims are valid here. While most if not all of these images can likely be appropriately licensed and re-uploaded, given this user's track record, I cannot trust them to provide the correct license information. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep All. I stopped adding individual keep tags. Attributions and licenses fixed, 1 January 1966 is the cutoff date to be PD in India and the USA. Most of the images have been released as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported by the photographer. What we have is a new user, uploading with the default settings, as most people did. The new upload form is supposed to make it more clear how to attribute and date, the copies of historic images. --RAN (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Otto Dix

Copyright violation, the paintings excerpts shown here are works by de:Otto Dix who died in 1969, so these files won't come into public domain before 2040.

Correlatio (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination, Mr. Dix died in 1969. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Files in Category:Otto Dix

copyright violation, artist died in 1969 (pd not before 2039), no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Zu MHG 2020 Warlich 03.jpg: Bei den Ausstellungsstücken handelt es sich um Ausstellungs-/Zirkusplakaten der Tätowierten Damen. Wenn bei dieser Gesamtaufnahme die Panoramafreiheit nicht gelten sollte, kann ich auch ein Bild erstellen, dass Maud Arizona verpixelt.
Zu MHG 2020 Warlich Finke Dix 01.jpg: Hier ist kein "Werk" von Otto Dix zu sehen, es sind Zeichnungen von Karl Finke (gest. 1935). Grüße --Doc.Heintz (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
„Mittig eine signierte Bildpostkarte von Otto Dix“ steht aber in der Beschreibung.... Überdies sind auch die gezeigten Texte nicht gemeinfrei. Martin Sg. (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
Hallo Martin Sg., die Postkarte ist um 1920 (100 Jahre) und kein "Werk" von Dix. (Unterschriften (Signaturen) sind in der Regel nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt, da ihnen meist die notwendige Schöpfungshöhe als Werk fehlt.) Wer die angeführten Markierungen eingezeichnet hat ist unbekannt. Die Texte sind vom Kurator Ole Wittmann und teilweise von mir, können also genehmigt werden. Alle Originalfotografien sind von mir und können, wenn nötig, an den entsprechenden Stellen gepixelt werden. Ich habe vom Beginn des Forschungsprojektes Warlich bis zur Beendigung der Ausstellung im MHG, die gesamte Dokumentation in meinem Archiv. Bevor wir diese Ausstellung erstellt haben, wurde alle urheberrechtlichen Fragen geprüft, sonst hätte das MHG sicherlich eingegriffen. Die Tagesthemen haben die gesamte Ausstellung im Bild gesendet, ohne etwas zu verpixeln, ebenso große Teile der Printmedien. Sollte Wikimedia, aufgrund eigener Statuten, hier Einzelheiten begründet zu bemängeln haben, so bessere ich gerne nach. Beste Grüße --Doc.Heintz (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep for at least File:FürOtto.jpg - definately a de minimis issue. Msb (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:PK-THT crash site 2.jpg

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States: "Note that all files hosted on Wikimedia Commons must either be in the public domain in the United States, or available under a free license valid in the United States. This is in addition to any public-domain/licensing requirement dependent on country of origin." This file isn't in the public domain in the United States. Looking at COM:TAG United States, none of the PD-US tags apply to this file. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, I'm not the first nor will be the last to use the tag, but I assume these country-specific license tags existed here in Wikimedia for a reason and for it to exist it would have to comply with Wikimedia's guidelines in the first place. Deleting this file would cause a huge precedence. Jauhsekali (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
See: "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis mine).
Commons:Licensing "is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone must follow. [...]" (italics mine).
Keeping this file would go against Wikimedia Commons' policy and standard. The fact that it has been incorrectly used (and still is) is not a justification to keep doing so. These country-specific PD tags exist to tell users when a file in a foreign country is in the public domain, since a PD file has to be PD in both countries. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Wikimedia is based in United States, so every copyright license should be valid also in the United States to prevent copyright infringement, which isn't the case here. Protoeus (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep since when are government works copyrighted in the US? why would an foreign goverment copyright their works in the US when their own laws state that their works are not copyrighted?? nonsense, you'd have to delete 50k files in Category:PD Indonesian Government + various other countries. ~TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I'm going off what Commons:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons' official policy, is saying. I'd say it's pretty worrying that pretty much nobody has bothered to comply with this policy despite the requirements for PD being at the top of one Wikimedia Commons' major policies. All foreign public domain works must include a PD-US tag. And what PD-US tag would apply in this case? None. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I mean it is kind of unfair to expect a foreign country to also have public domain images for the US. Why would Indonesia want to make their files public domain for the US? I think 90 percent of all files on Wikimedia could get deleted because of this. Zaptain United (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
It’s not unfair. Every country has different copyright laws, and if you want to use an image in X country, you have to follow their copyright laws. It’s not about wanting to make files free for the US. Simply, Wikimedia Commons is based in the US so we have to follow US laws regarding copyright. Indonesian Government works are public domain in Indonesia, but since countries have different laws, whether PD Indonesia images can be used varies. In this case, these files do not meet the criteria for PD-US.
It’s already pretty clear that US-based Wikimedia Commons policy requires foreign public domain works to be in the public in the United States, but for the sake of it, here are actual copyright laws:
  • Per Hamilton College : Public Domain Outside the U.S. – Copyright laws of other countries can be very different. A work that is in the public domain in the U.S. is not necessarily in the public domain outside of the U.S., and vice versa. […] In other words, if you intend to use the work only within the U.S. you should make a public domain determination based on the U.S. copyright law. […]
  • Per Cornell University : Foreign works published after 1928 are likely to be still under copyright in the US because of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) modifying the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). […]
  • Per the Dominican University of California : If you are in the U.S. and you are trying to determine the copyright status of a foreign created work, then the first presumption is that U.S. law applies to make that determination.
Should I go on? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, instead of general copyright paranoia, quote some actual cases where the indonesian goverment (or any government) has claimed copyright for works in other countries while they are not under copyright in their jurisdiction. ~TheImaCow (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I don't think such a case has ever happened, not that that proves anything at all. Instead, I'll cite more copyright laws (italics mine):
  • Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978 – After 1 March 1989 – Published in a country that has copyright relations with the US: 70 years after the death of author, or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication
  • 3. After March 1, 1989, all works (published and unpublished) are protected for 70 years from the date the author dies. So, for example, the unpublished works of an author who died in 1943 are in the public domain as of January 1, 2014. For works of corporate authorship (works made for hire), the copyright term is the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.
  • Each country has its own unique copyright laws that govern intellectual property (like copyright) in that country. A country's copyright laws only apply to works created and used in that country. This means that the copyright an author holds in the United States may not be valid in other countries. [...] – Am I required to follow the copyright laws of other countries in the U.S.? – Generally, the copyright law of the country you are in applies within that country. This is true even if the work you are using originated across international borders.
  • Copyright and public domain determinations are dependent on jurisdiction. When you are working in only one jurisdiction, this is relatively easy. Generally speaking, users of copyrighted or public domain works should follow the law of the country in which they are making the copyright determination. So, if you are part of an institution working in Mexico, then you should follow the law of Mexico to make your copyright determinations. [...]
  • If you are reproducing, publishing, distributing, or displaying a work in a foreign country, you will need to investigate the copyright term in that country [...].
This is not copyright paranoia. This is adhering to copyright laws and official Commons policy based on copyright laws.
And in addition, let's take Template:PD-India (and its variations) as an example. The template states that "This work is in the public domain in India because its term of copyright has expired or it is ineligible for copyright", but at the same time, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." The same goes for Template:PD-Taiwan, Template:PD-PRC, Template:PD-New Zealand, Template:PD-Canada, Template:PD-South Korea, Template:PD-Japan, Template:PD-Uruguay, Template:PD-Georgia, etc... Care to explain that? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
You are right that there dosen't to appear to be a specific US copyright tag or law making public domain works by other governments also public domain in the United States. -I certainly don't know about any-.
However, files like that have been on Commons without any problems for the last 20 years. I see no reason as to why this minor detail should be anything to care about; again, why would a government register copyright for their works in foreign jusdictions when they're free of copyright in their own. Dosen't makes any sense to me whatsoever.
This "change" in longstanding practice you're advocationg for, for unclear reasons, will affect literally hundreds of thousands of files, and will certainly need wider disussion than this obscure DR here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
I too was under the initial impression that foreign PD files were also PD in the US, until I discovered that this wasn’t the case (this fact is already known at Wikipedia’s Featured Article process). Your suggestion that we disregard copyright laws is concerning (and is akin to what COM:PRP states: "Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims[.]") Whilst looking around for more information, I found this paper from Siobhan Leachman which states: "Because the Wikimedia Foundation has servers in American, American copyright law also applies to any content I want to reuse on those projects. So in order to reuse content I not only have to navigate New Zealand copyright law, I also have to ensure the content I want to reuse is either appropriately licensed for reuse or out of copyright under American law." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
For example, The Diary of Anne Frank had to be removed from Wikisource because it was still copyrighted in the United States, despite it being in the public domain in the Netherlands. See this BBC article and this statement by Wikimedia Foundation’s legal counsel for more information. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd like to point out again that I am not talking about "general PD outside US but not in US" like Anne Frank, I am talking about "PD government work outside US, no clear law/rule on this in US". Not only are there no cases where foreign governments have claimed US copyright on their works which are not copyrightable in own jurisdictions - this simply wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. COM:PRP which you are quoting requires "significant doubt", and when you're unable to even quote a single case where that happened from any county, we're far away from that. ~TheImaCow (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
So because there hasn’t been a single reported case, copyright laws are disregarded? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Such minor technicalities such as that here which have absolutely no basis in reality - are disregarded.
Foreign government work --> Free of copyrights under their laws --> Zero reason for them to register US copyright.
~TheImaCow (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Fully agreed, unless there are Indonesian laws that allow their government to sue for breach of U.S. copyright of public domain files. We don't need to emulate Alice in Wonderland to try to find illusory copyright violation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The laws clearly state what is or isn't allowed and cannot be discarded because they supposedly "have absolutely no basis in reality" so this is not a case of "illusory copyright violation". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
What Indonesian law allows the Indonesian government to sue for breach of copyright in foreign countries of documents issued by the Indonesian government that are in the public domain in Indonesia because of that? If there isn't any such law, the fact that those documents would otherwise still be under copyright in the U.S. is obviously null and void. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Isuf Sulovari (nënshkrim).svg

Nenshkrim jo i vertete Skerdisulovari (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Write english when you nominate a file. Kj1595 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
@Kj1595: That is not necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The user is claiming this signature is not accurate. Sulovari's painting, found here in Commons, shows that it is. I drew this based on a different painting but the scribe pattern is very similar. See the red writing on the bottom left File:Nudo në të Kuqe.jpg. Kj1595 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Centralna banka BiH.JPG

COM:FOP Bosnia and Herzegovina SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Built in 1931 by architect Milan Zloković (1898–1965), with decorative elements by Vladimir Pavlovič Zagorodnjuk (1889–1976). Nakonana (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Gözəl Bayramlının məzarı.jpg

DW no permission Krd 13:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Glavna banka Republike Srpske.jpg

COM:FOP Bosnia and Herzegovina SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no special building design Lukas Beck (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep — Sadko (words are wind) 22:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Epic Records 1978.svg

Unsure about this version of the Epic Records logo. It uses color gradient for its at least three colors. May be above COM:TOO US. George Ho (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Originally, I was gonna ask about Epic Records's blue-ish labels, like this one. However, as I realize, this DR discussion would impact how Commons would handle content with color gradient, like one exemplifying it and another one by Columbia Records, both of which I've been reluctant to import to Commons. George Ho (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:CHEFS-CULINAR.svg

Urheberrechtlich nicht korrekt hochgeladen Antonia Röper (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:CHEFS-CULINAR.svg

Urheberrechtlich nicht korrekt hochgeladen

File:Wavre - Cimetière de Wavre, tombe de Sœur Sourire (07).JPG

We have several pictures of this tomb, it's useless to keep that one with an unknown man next to it. Same thing for File:Wavre - Cimetière de Wavre, tombe de Sœur Sourire (06).JPG. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep La personne avec qui je partage ma vie depuis six ans... Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Sarajevo Central-Bank-of-Bosnia-and-Herzegovina 2007-08-16.jpg

COM:FOP Bosnia and Herzegovina SomeFancyUsername (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:My-wiki-photos My-wiki-photos (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Noticeboards at the former residences of Yang Yong, Tan Sitong, and Wang Zhen

No FoP for 2D works in China. The textual and graphical content presented on information noticeboards in former residences of famous figures is not in the public domain and is protected by copyright law. See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs: "As a rule of thumb, detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs, such as the ones that are often found at historical or tourist sites, are almost always copyright-protected and photographs of them cannot usually be accepted. Noticeboards may include graphic images or extended textual matter, or both, and copyright is likely to subsist in both. 2D-artwork is included in the FoP copyright-exception in most FoP-countries, but not in: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canada, China." --Huangdan2060 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Mehdi saeedi.jpg

Upload from an account with very few cross-wiki edits that does not appear to be own work but is more likely to be some sort of self-portrait by the depicted calligrapher, though I could not find a source with an image search. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Milli Savunma Üniversitesi amblem.png

Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:SITES Spectre.jpg

False authorship - who is Craig K Lee? There exists a "Craig" (no surname) admin at the forums of gunsite.co.za, but this old user seems to purport to be this guy from this website without good evidence and has uploaded this file that is not their own work EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify- this is an inactive commercial news site, and my suspicion is that the File is a corporate-owned proprietary image that Craig, the forums' infrastructure admin and perhaps a co-owner of the business, wouldn't be releasing. I also doubt the uploader is really Craig. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Please do a little more fact checking. The forum is very much active on that domain. I uploaded a photo of my personal firearm.
I took and uploaded this photo thank you for the recognition that this was a quality photo.
let’s leave this image. There is little information about these and even fewer pictures.
thank you, Craig Craigklee (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I thought the forums had no activity after 2021 but I now see that there is a little trickle of chat within the past month. May I email you at your forum admin address Craig@gunsite.co.za? EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
No further correspondence has occurred between the uploader and I EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
@EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth @Craigklee still no correspondence? Nakonana (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
None EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A ' turbulence' of tadpoles - Flickr - gailhampshire.jpg

This are no tadpoles.Those are tiny (cat-) fish. ~2026-43468-4 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably Black Bullhead Catfish (Ameiurus melas) ??? :) ~2026-43468-4 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Whether the file's name properly applies the definition of a "tadpole" is irrelevant to its deletion. This is a confirmed properly licensed image. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
No matter if the image is licensed or not, those are tiny catfish, and not tadpoles. Then the photo is linked incorrect ... :) ~2026-43468-4 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep. Request COM:File renaming and change the description and categories as appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Jimandedplaque.jpg

I don't think that the text and images on this memorial plaque - which went on display in Wheaton College in 1957 - are covered by American law on freedom of panorama. DS (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Daniel Dias escritor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: self-published books of fiction and promotional materials related to them (cover art, readings).

Omphalographer (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Os livros não são auto publicados. Foram editados por pequenas editoras Daniel Dias escritor (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Daniel Dias escritor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: a ton of video recordings (in Portuguese) of recitations of poetry and other writings, primarily by the uploader, and primarily of his own work. Educational use seems unlikely; audio/video quality of the recordings is often poor.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Os livros não são autopromoção se quiser verificar na Internet há um editora: "O Lugar da palavra " que os editou e são literatura pois têm muita criatividade e estética. Quanto os vídeos o seu erro também é grave, poia a maioria e os que tenciono fazer no futuro são de clássicos nacionais e de outros países de poesia (que é um assunto muito nobre), o seu argumento não é argumento pois eles são muito educacionais e convocam as gerações mais novas para a leitura de poesia tendo eu já experiência disso. Daniel Dias escritor (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
 Delete – audio versions of the poems may be useful but these aren't of good quality basically and I don't see how the video adds to the audio. Unlikely to be useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Daniel Dias escritor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: plain text. Self-published books (and the cover of one of those books).

Omphalographer (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Daniel Dias escritor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: additional videos of poetry recitations similar to those previously nominated.

Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment note that the user keeps on uploading many further videos of that type such as File:O poema Andaime do poeta Português Fernando Pessoa declamado por Daniel Dias.webm. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Daniel Dias escritor (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: additional similar recordings.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete but @admins this time please leave this more time and maybe consider some action to prevent further uploads of these: just me agreeing with Omphalographer is not really enough, especially when it's not just one or two file(s) and the DR hasn't been open for a long time. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag Map of British Raj (Azad Hind) (1942).png

nominate for deletion, we already have one of these files Idk373738367 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)