File:辽宁职业学院 （Liaoning Vocational College）校园内拍摄的校园风景 05.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, uploader's request which uploader claimed they "do not have the rights", but at the same time they indicate it is their "own work" when uploading, and image do have proper EXIF. I would have support deletion based on the quality (bad tilt), but the image is COM:INUSE in zh-wiki. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 07.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 11.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 103.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 106.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:喀喇沁左翼蒙古族自治县 111.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:辽宁职业学院 （Liaoning Vocational College）校训1.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:辽宁朝阳站 03.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:五家子村 02.jpg

I mistakenly selected a free license when uploading this file. I do not actually have the rights to release it under this license, so the current license is invalid. Please delete the file per COM:LICENSE. Zhaolinyang (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Weak keep in scope +CC licenses is non revokable SomeFancyUsername (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zhaolinyang, Did you create this image? Kadı Message 21:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BVB Bus Mercedes Sprinter.jpg

Doubt this is user's own work. Looks like a PNG screenshot cutout on a white background LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Simulació artística de Medina Laqant.png

Misleading Ai-generated historical illustration 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 06:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep currently in use at ca:Història d'Alacant. I don't know whether it's misleading and you only claimed so. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The deletion rationale ("misleading AI-generated historical illustration") is unsubstantiated and does not hold up against Commons policies.

1. The file is actively in use at ca:Història d'Alacant, which under COM:INUSE automatically qualifies it as educationally useful and within scope, regardless of any other consideration. Policy explicitly states: «it does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value».
2. The file has clear and documented educational value. It depicts the medieval Islamic city of Madīnat Laqant (present-day Alacant) in the 12th century — an encyclopaedic subject of undeniable historical relevance. Commons defines "educational" in its broad sense as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative", which this illustration plainly satisfies.
3. The file fully complies with COM:AI. It clearly discloses its AI-generated nature in the description, includes the complete prompt, identifies the software (DALL·E 3 via ChatGPT) and the human author, carries the appropriate categories (AI-generated images including prompts, Images generated by DALL-E 3), and uses both the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence and the {{PD-algorithm}} tag. A file that meets all transparency requirements set by COM:AI cannot be deemed "misleading" solely because it is AI-generated.
4. The "misleading" claim is unproven. The nominator has provided no specific evidence that the image deceives viewers. The burden of proof lies with those proposing deletion. The file title itself reads "Simulació artística" (artistic simulation), and the description explicitly explains its creation process. Thousands of human-made historical illustrations on Commons depict medieval cities and scenes without direct archaeological evidence — none are considered "misleading" merely for being artistic reconstructions.
5. The image is grounded in peer-reviewed archaeological scholarship. Both the prompt design and the subsequent GIMP edits are based on the archaeological description of the medina published by Rosser Limiñana (1990, page 28). This makes it an informed artistic visualisation of a documented textual source — no different in nature from a human illustrator working from the same bibliography.
6. No applicable deletion criterion exists. Reviewing Commons:Deletion policy, the file does not fall under any recognised grounds for deletion: it is not a copyright violation, it has no missing licensing information, it is not illegal content, it is not self-promotion, and it is not an educational-value-free private snapshot. "Misleading" is not a standalone deletion category under Commons policy.

Conclusion: the file meets all applicable policies (COM:INUSE, COM:AI, COM:SCOPE), is transparently labelled, educationally grounded, and actively used in a Wikimedia project.

The deletion request should be closed as kept. Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Delete I simply do not trust AI to produce reliable educational illustrations, period. Dronebogus (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't care what you do trust or don't. We must fit works to Wikimedia Commons policies. Period. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 07:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Applying policy without regard to context and common sense is w:wp:wikilawyering Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Correctly applying policy is not wikilawyering, it is exactly what we are supposed to do. If the policy is flawed, the way forward is to propose its reform, not to disregard it in individual cases. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Not misleading: it clearly says it's "concept art". TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:لقاء اعلامى مع الدكتورة امل سليمان فى مهرجان الايادى الذهبية.png

This file was initially tagged by Dyolf77 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F10
Can somebody with Egiyptoin backrgound find out which TV chanel this is. eventually we can keep it because of the tv channel. Sanandros (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:شعار موقع صدى البلاد.png

اريد حذفة نظرا لاجراء تعديلات علي اللوجو Reda2030 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Google Translate: "I want to delete it due to modifications to the logo".  Keep if the station is notable;  Delete if it's not. A new file can be uploaded, descriptions can be changed, and you can request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Afghanistan (1826–1840).svg

I, as the creator of the file, nominate this file to be deleted. As its dates are inaccurate, it has been replaced with a newer version: File:Flag of Afghanistan (1823–1839).svg AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I can see no difference in the images. Is there one? If the filename was inaccurate, we could have handled that more easily by renaming it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Afghanistan (1826–1840).svg

Another file "1823–1839" exists, and the dates for this flag, and much of its making is inaccurate too. Moreover, Afghanistan was ruled by Shuja Shah Durrani in 1840, which shows that this file *must* be deleted. AfghanTsakhtan (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per COM:INUSE. Edit the file description as appropriate and request COM:File renaming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Sadio Mane Al-Nassr.jpg

لأنها صورة فيا روح XOB30 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Getty images are copyrighted. -- Karim (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Fares Awad.jpg

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Getty images are copyrighted. -- Karim (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:ابو فلة.jpg

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

لأنها صورة فيها روح XOB30 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ленинградская - panoramio.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. The sculpture is apparently modern. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep no sculpture depicted, just an actual decommissioned airplane mounted on something that is the result of engineering and/or architecture — things that are not protected by copyright or are covered by FoP Russia. A "monument to technology". Keep per similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Памятник авиагруппе «Русские витязи» в Кубинке.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ahinsa jain (talk · contribs)

Apparently erroneous AI-generated soil maps of India, with no clear source of the data, just a description of "based on my crop soil map". For example, nearly all other maps of soil in India show black soil encroaching on Telangana and reaching the east coast (eg. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Major-soil-map-of-India-Maps-of-India-2021_fig1_356823522), which this AI map does not.

• File:Bharat map.png
• File:Soil map.svg

Belbury (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Apparently you're right. Can I upload a new version. Ahinsa jain (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can make or find an accurate accurate map, sure, please do.

Commons already has an existing map from 2013 which may serve your purpose: File:Major soil types in India.jpg Belbury (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I use the research gate map as a reference? AI will copy colors but create file based on svgs (from commons). Ahinsa jain (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If you credit it (and its author) as being the reference, yes. Belbury (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've uploaded the corrected version. The best I could get. Ahinsa jain (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If these new versions are based solely on the ResearchGate map, they don't match it particularly well (eg. the AI map shows Gujurat as just black soil and a large amount of desert, while the ResearchGate map shows five different soil types including very little desert).

I don't know what prompts or other data sources you're using for this, but it looks as if this is a task that this particular AI cannot perform accurately. Belbury (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've started a pprocess by which labels are there for each district. Now I will manually provide the soil data for each label.

Also a district map with name hovering on it. Ahinsa jain (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Soil map.svg has now been replaced with a lowish quality automatic SVG conversion of the ResearchGate map I suggested comparing it to above. That map doesn't appear to be freely licenced, though: "Content may be subject to copyright." You can use a map for general reference, but you can't just copy it directly. Belbury (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

My district level mapping of all districts is complete and now I'm in creating a hoverable soil svg.-Ahinsa jain (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Antonio Isauro Alzate Buenafe.svg

File is a bishop's coat of arms template with a blank shield, containing only the prelate's motto. Potentially out of scope or fictional as it may not actually depict Buenafe's coat of arms (indicated source has no blazon or reference image). Is this only a placeholder? P-JR (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Buchvorstellung in der Residenz München, Graf Arco Valley und Regine Mainka-Tersteegen.jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 18:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep the license has been provided after AntiCompositeBot's tagging, see diff. Nakonana (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Chromium logo.png

Unused, out of scope. Leonel Sohns (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Keep You don't get to wait 3 years and nominate the same file for deletion again. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:GS&WR Class L2 Sambo.jpg

Other O'Dea photos deleted after discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with NLI Ref.: ODEA. TwinBoo (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ważenie cielaka, z prawej dr hab. Aleksandra Ziołecka (1973).jpg

Unlikely to be own work, source is NAC ~2026-13004-97 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr hab Aleksandra Ziołecka z cielakiem w oborze, IFiZZ PAN (1973).jpg

Unlikely to be own work, source is NAC ~2026-13004-97 (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Paolo Bonolis 1.jpg

Also: File:Paolo Bonolis (cropped).jpg: The Flickr file description clearly says all rights reserved - All rights reserved. Please don't use photos without my permission. This is an unfree license per COM:L, which says: The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: ... Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses. (permission is also needed in this case). All of the uploader's other files are all rights reserved, so this one being CC BY might be an error. HurricaneZeta^C 23:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

There is also this file (https://www.flickr.com/photos/music/4548240429/in/photostream/) that is always under CC.BY. Furthermore, if you look in the license of Paolo Bonolis' photo in the Flickr page, there is an "History" button of the license. The CC.BY license was applied on April 26, 2010, two days after the uploading. The license history clearly says that the photo was under copyright and then it was modified into CC.BY. @HurricaneZeta StomboyCarGeek (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That could be the case but it's also original research. What we do have is the very unambiguous description, which is clearly not compatible with Commons as it contradicts the CC BY license and imposes additional restrictions. HurricaneZeta^C 15:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:PregnancyinCrossSection.jpg

Appears to be a DW of https://www.alamy.com/this-image-shows-the-fetus-at-the-third-trimester-of-the-pregnancy-image156174402.html with skin color changed JayCubby (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Have reached out to the author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• It is interesting that the same photographer at Alamy "QA International" has a very similar image that says "[https://www.alamy.com/the-baby-is-expelled-when-labor-has-sufficiently-dilated-the-cervix-image156173915.html This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy of the image.". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Another useful link from 2009 from "QA international Collectif" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The image has a VRT/OTRS-confirmed permission. --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Okay answer was that it was adapted from QA International "Please Note: Users of the Black Fetus Illustration must always quote this copyright notice in their usage of the Black Fetus Illustration: © Chidiebere Ibe. Adapted from the original illustration © QA International, 2010. https://qa-international.com" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Looking into the license of the original. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay we have a document from QA International that states "The Licensee owns the copyright in the Black-Fetus Illustration and therefore reserves the right to licence or sub-license any rights, subject only to the terms of the Acceptable Use." With acceptable uses being "The Licensee is authorised to deal with the Black-Fetus Illustration which is an adaptation of the Original Illustration as follows: 1. Deploy the Black-Fetus Illustration for his personal use, which includes use on his personal social media platforms, profile and portfolio and platforms associated with him, available presently and as may be created in the future, such as brand pages, websites, etc. For instance, his personal website www.chidierebereibe.com. 2. License for free, the use of the Black-Fetus Illustration in medical textbooks and materials which are not to be sold by the sub-licensee but would be used for the promotion of medical knowledge, health awareness and diversity in medical practice generally. 3. Allow and license the use of the Black-Fetus Illustrations on websites, blogging and microblogging sites, free educational software, and other forms of media provided that such use are not for revenue-generating activities, but solely for educational purposes. 4. License the Black-Fetus Illustration for commercial purposes subject to the terms listed in paragraph 7 of this Agreement in relation to where, why and by whom the Black-Fetus Illustration is used for commercial purposes. 5. To exercise all rights ordinarily exercisable by a copyright holder and guaranteed by the extant laws, treaties and regulations, but without prejudice to the rights of the Licensor with respect to the Original Illustration and subject to the provisions of this Agreement. For instance, the Licensee could, within the parameters of the Applicable Uses, add small modifications to the Black Fetus Illustration without the approval of the Licensor. However, should the Licensee whish to add some modifications that may change substantially the Black Fetus Illustration, the Licensor shall approve the modifications prior to any kind of publication of the modified Black Fetus Illustration."

7. "The Licensee shall not be entitled to assign or sub-license or sell any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without a prior written consent from QAI, except as permitted under Acceptable Use. Should the parties agree that licenses of the Black-Fetus Illustration should be sold, all gross proceeds from sales shall be divided in the following ratio: 50% Licensor/50% Licensee. In the event of termination of this Agreement, any licenses granted by the Licensee to third parties shall continue to be effective, provided that the licenses were made prior to the termination of the present Agreement. The Licensee shall continue to receive all revenue from the licenses and shall pay the shares to the Licensor upon receipt of such monies."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Doc James, many thanks for the work. I'm sorry to be a pain about this.

From my decipherment of the legalese, I am still inclined to  vote delete.

• License for free, the use of the Black-Fetus Illustration in medical textbooks and materials which are not to be sold by the sub-licensee but would be used for the promotion of medical knowledge, health awareness and diversity in medical practice generally.: Non-commercial, for personal/ed use only
• The Licensee shall not be entitled to assign or sub-license or sell any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement to any third party without a prior written consent from QAI Makes reuse difficult.
• owever, should the Licensee whish to add some modifications that may change substantially the Black Fetus Illustration, the Licensor shall approve the modifications prior to any kind of publication of the modified Black Fetus Illustration. Prohibits derivative works.

I'm not sure that Ibe can re-license under CC BY SA. Maybe CC BY NC ND, but that's not allowed on Commons.

Are any of Ibe's other illustrations retraces from stock? JayCubby (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me see if they can get better conditions from QAI. Not sure about other ones. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Have asked for a legal opinion form a copyright lawyer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes! Please see here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/indygeneus-health-expands-its-impact-advisory- ~2026-24445-79 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)