Commons:Deletion requests/2026/01/29

January 29

File:Territory Stories home page (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by Josve05a as Dw no source since (dw no source since)

The files are freely licensed, but not attributed as per the "BY" requirement in the license. We need photographer names etc., and I don't have time to spend finding these. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Jonatan (talk),
I uploaded this image for inclusion in the article, Library & Archives NT. I regret that I can't see how the details I provided are inadequate: you have mentioned it is "not attributed as per the 'BY' requirement in the license" but I have provided details in the Licensing section and in the note above the section. The source is shown in the Summary. Could you please elaborate on what you think is wrong? Should I have done an {{Own}} licence as well to cover the fact that I took the screenshot?
A concern for me is that the Alice Springs Public Library has uploaded photos from their collection, none of which (as far as I have been able to determine) shows a source. Historical Photo 001.tif up to 029 are examples. Unfortunately, none of the links to the uploader(s) are active. I hope to contact the library soon to see if I can inform them before they upload many more. Cheers, SCHolar44 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello SCHolar44.The issue is that the license requires attribution to the actual creator of each image. At the moment, no individual photographers or creators are named, nor is there a direct link to the specific image pages on the external site where that information can be verified. Simply stating that the images come from Library & Archives NT in general is not sufficient for the BY requirement. Are you claiming that Library & Archives NT itself is the creator and copyright holder of all the images, rather than the individual photographers? If not, the authors must be listed or clearly linked per image. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification, Jonatan. Ah! I had not spotted what was missing. I have now provided the details. In a few minutes I will have removed the deletion tag and hit the Publish button but if you don't think I've solved the problem, feel free to revert -- or get back. Best wishes, Simon SCHolar44 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:WMP at HASC.png

By default all UK parliamentary works are covered by Parliamentary Copyright. Unless the video (from which the image has been taken) description explicitly states “Open Government Licence” (and this one does not), it remains under Parliamentary Copyright. Greenshed (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I also think that this should be an allowed use under parliamentary copyright based on this: https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/use-of-parliamentary-photographic-images/ these terms). Is there a way of changing the license information? (I'm new to the use of images here) Samuelshraga (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
While it's very easy to change the licencing tag, the terms set on the parliament.uk site do not amount to their material being free content which is necessary for hosting on the Commons. See Commons:Licensing for more. Greenshed (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Hunger Games In Real Life.webm

No educational content. This is not a place to share anyone's parody videos. This image is out of project scope. COM:EV Muwertg (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep This video was made by a notable person, Fidias Panayiotou.
The file meets basic quality standards, does not violate copyrights, and can be used as an example of a parody of a popular media franchise. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 03:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Iuwilliams1 (talk · contribs)

These images of rally towels are all COM:DWs, but are tagged as own work. They're probably copyright violations.

Eureka Lott 01:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:ASU.jpg

Name was changed as the name used was generic at the time until the rename. It's no longer used. Ominae (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

redirect is still in use. An if it is here in use external projects out of the Wikimedia are eventually also using it.--Sanandros (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Trillium Lake at Mt. Hood in OR - Flickr - landscapesinthewest.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Red panda bot as no license (No license since) Krok6kola (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

However, there are many photos of this lake: Category:Trillium Lake, why is this one different? Krok6kola (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. I do not see a reason to doubt the validity of PD-mark. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 5 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 uploaded by Minecraft11226 (talk · contribs)

do not own ownership

Minecraft11226 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 13:35, 5 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 uploaded by Minecraft11226 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: unused voting icons; higher-quality standardized icons for these votes already exist (File:Symbol split vote.svg and File:Symbol arrow down.svg).

Omphalographer (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Minecraft11226 (talk · contribs)

Blurry, small, low quality, unused images, likely not within project scope - some possible copyvios as well

Geoffroi 23:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

why are you deleting everysing one of my photos? just because they may not be used, i still took all of them and spent time on them. Minecraft11226 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
not all of them are blury Minecraft11226 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
File:Damage to the store during the tornado.jpg is a copyright violation from Facebook. File:Games on a shelf.png and the others are not very well focused and they don't have any educational value. Geoffroi 00:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
would you like me to get a better camera? Minecraft11226 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
what about clay windmills Minecraft11226 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
It would be better to place them on a table in better light and get a closer, more detailed image. As regards the choice of camera, I think you'd be fine with a modern smartphone camera. Geoffroi 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
I took that with a 30 dollar camera that's 3 years old. but I could retake them Minecraft11226 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
File:The low pressure system that spawned the belmond 1966 tornado.png is from the US National Weather Service and is perfectly visible and in the scope of Commons Meteorology project. It should be kept. I have no opinions for the others. Pierre cb (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Thalverin (talk · contribs)

Copyvio: non-free audio in these videos.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Specifically:
Omphalographer (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Per a comment on the uploader's user talk page (ping: @Thalverin) "the original composers of those songs passed away a long time ago (some more than 100 years ago), and the songs used in the video are performed by contemporary singers." However, this does not make these recordings freely licensed. Omphalographer (talk) 22:04, 30 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 Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs)

not in scope images.

Iwaqarhashmi (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Pls don't delete it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they're out of scope. The first one, at least, is in use. They look like old (indeed, probably 1988) photos, though, and I wouldn't believe the "own work" claim without COM:VRT backing it up. Uploader needs to prove to them that they photographed these shots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I have collection of such pictures Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Own work" doesn't mean you own the work, it means that you shot the photos yourself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. This is also AI generated. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 05:09, 18 December 2024 (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 Ghaltaan (talk · contribs)

User blocked for copyright violations, small files without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Fit India 11:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk · contribs)

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

Omphalographer (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

these are just filtered using AI, not completely new generated. Original ones are totally dull and poor clarity image Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Please upload the original and next time don't use AI filters. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:SwiPay Baar.png

Out of scope: this is an AI-generated image. If this image was generated based on a freely licensed photograph, please upload the original. Omphalographer (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Original file uploaded, please review again. ~2026-75293-5 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Virgin Australia Group Logo.jpg

Well i uploaded this file by accident, also realised that the logo is not correct and have not known about it SLS Rocket (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Pam Bondi poster.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)


Keep The underlying image of Bondi is in the public domain. The text of the graffiti ("I am a Nazi", "Free DC", etc.) is too simple to qualify for copyright protection and the lettering is not stylized. In addition, based on the handwriting, the poster has been vandalized by at least three different people so we cannot claim the vandalized poster reflects the artistic choices of a single artist. Nvss132 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Keep Agree with Nvss132. --PetrVod (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Festival de Cine de Alcalá de Henares (RPS 12-11-2022) ALCINE 51, cartel.png

COM:POSTERs are temporarily display, cannot benefit from FOP A1Cafel (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)


 Keep Este cartel tiene la siguiente licencia: ALCINE51 © 2022 by Equipo SOPA is licensed under Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (ver en: https://alcine.org/publicacion/123/cartel-li-festival-de-cine/).
Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 17:02, 29 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.

File:Snorkelling session with Kumaran in Lakes near chennai.jpg

rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion, Not found on the internet using Google Images. P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Snorkelling session with Kumaran in Lakes near chennai.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Solomon203 as no permission (No permission since) Krd 09:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Since... when? The file has been published as own work under cc-4.0 license from the very start. I see no argument here,  Keep. --Enyavar (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

File:"Aynvaul" Sunburst Flag.png

Out of scope: Personal fiction, unsourced, unused. Enyavar (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Added on 2026-02-02: File:Kingdom Aynvaul 500px.png and File:AynvaulCoA.png, for the same reason. --Enyavar (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
This image was just brought back after being proven to be used in the real world. Check the logs by admins. I will add a source as the flag is described in a local paper. RiderValor (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
(after reading up) Further: 1. Out of scope does not apply here as the image, while not used currently, there are plenty of images and files in that state (that's how a repository works which is what wikicommons is) 2. Personal fiction applies to personal use of fictitious nature; that is not what this file is. 2a: There are images available online of this flag being flown in real life. 2b. Educational Value - as a variation of the irish sunburst flag, that is flown in real life, it serves an educational value in showcasing the evolution of the design and reappropriation by different subsets of the Irish and wider Irish diaspora. The image holds educational value and use in regards to but not limited to the following discussions: local unofficial cultural flags and identity, irish-american flags and symbolism, long island irish diaspora, irish-american revivalism, and vexillology. It's an example of non-dissident republican use much like the design used by the ancient order of hibernians. 3. unused This flag, could be argued to be unofficial, hence the category, this however does not indicate a need for deletion under the censorship policy of wikicommons. "Files shall not be deleted due to personal opinion or animosity against said files." unused =/= out of scope Wikicommons is a repository. 4. unsourced you had me there, the file wasn't/isn't fully sourced; I have since corrected that.
Hope this clears everything up. RiderValor (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
@Enyavar personal fiction? explain ScholarGray13 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
@ScholarGray13: Re: "explain" : "Personal fiction" means the general principle that uploads of files of personal imaginations of single persons (including invented symbols that may be used by only a selected in-group of people) are deemed not educationally useful. That goes for most micronational flags, for NationStates symbols, but also for "ethnic" flags or self-proclaimed independence movements. Hundreds of files of personal fiction are uploaded daily; timely detection and deletion is usually not possible.
Re RiderValor: I was not aware of the Undeletion as it does not show up in the file history, and only now found this version of the UNDEL page after some searching for "the logs by admins". Anyway, you linked File:Aynvaulflagatfarmingdalestreetfair2024.jpg as evidence of "real usage" of that flag. As @Abzeronow: noted: he restored the file which was speedily deleted, but the file may still get deleted after a proper deletion process.
1: Commons is a repository, but not a webhost for personal files.
2a: The flag of a micronation or ethnic group being flown in real life (or in this case, being for sale in a street market) does not necessarily make it notable or educational.
2b: I'm disputing the "educational value" of a micronational flag. According to your own source, the flag was created in 2006 by a middleschooler in art class, who proceeded to found a micronation that lived on without much recognition (Aynvaul has managed to cultivate a community of around 100 individuals) until 2019 before it got dissolved. Nothing in that deviates from the typical cycle of a micronation. Another quote from that article: A cultural movement has to start somewhere – if the community wants it – it will take off eventually – but that is up to each individual to decide. Well, that notability/significance has to be decided by the Irish community of Long Island (still just 100 people?), not by Wikimedia Commons. I DO agree that the Category:Sunburst flag is apparently an Irish-American cultural symbol; I am not convinced that the Aynvaul flag is. (Also: Long time availability in Wikimedia projects does not turn a fiction into reality, even if the micronation is named after real places and reuses that place's real symbols.)
On a sidenote, an art project of 2006 would still be copyrighted, reproduction of the flag without the creator's permission would fall under copyright. The street fair usage where the flag is not even fully visible could possibly be de minimis, but the flag file is not.
3: Commons doesn't have a "censorship" policy, we have a scope. Personal animosity towards micronationalism may be a motivation for me to seek and weed out those symbols, but my argumentation must be within the scope parameters.
4: Thanks for now providing a source; the file was lacking that. Without any source, I had all reason to assume that this symbol was the movement of one single individual. A (however secretive) movement of 100 people as alleged in that newspaper does add some significance, although I'm still not sure how well researched that number is. Again, I don't think it's significant enough to count as "educational". --Enyavar (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
So per your definition, this can't be a personal file then? Personal is personal, and that's not what this appears to be. Especially given there was apparently a duplicate image uploaded by someone else. Second, nowhere in the article does it say that these guys themselves dissolved in 2019, I suggest rereading the article. And I guess a member of that community using the flag in 2024 confirms they are still around.
As for educational purposes: I plan on using the flag as an example of non-dissident republican use of sunburst flag variants much like the ancient order of hibernians. (another secretive) fraternity sort of bunch. Both designs are consistent with non-dissident republicans as pointed out by the source (("The Gaelic Revival and the Irish Revolution". www.ansionnachfionn.com.)) see "Variants not affiliated with the dissident republicans, such as the Irish Military College, typically use variants of the banner closer to the early 20th century Fenian orders, where the half-sun and its expanding rays are centered on the lower edge of the flag, the sunbeams alternating between short and longer ones. By contrast, most dissident republican flag variants, after 1990, tend to place a quarter-sun in the lower left field of the flag with rays emanating outwards into the top right field in either straight, wavy, or alternating between both..." I hope to still be able to visually show that for a side-by-side.
re: "...decided by the Irish community of Long Island (still just 100 people?)." About a hundred speakers of Irish there sounds about right to me. that language is not in good shape.
My vote is delete the later duplicate(because that does meet the duplicate definition), and keep the older one and fact check.  Strong keep ScholarGray13 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The Aynvaul flag was only created in 2006. In my opinion, that makes it pretty problematic to include in articles about 19th and 20th century Fianna movements in the US. Even so, the en:Sunburst flag lack critical sources, too, but that's not the issue here. --Enyavar (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
"Flags of the Irish Americans" will cover Irish-American flags from the 19th century to the 21st century and will address modern variants and their usage. "Even so, the en:Sunburst flag lack critical sources, too, but that's not the issue here." it was worse before, planning on remedying that. ScholarGray13 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
can we wrap this thread up? I feel like a lot of enyavar's arguments don't apply to this document. btw I looked at his DR history, it seems like the common critique from others is he is DRing based more on his own personal opinion rather than actual wikicommons policy. I agree with scholar.  Keep RiderValor (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
I assure you that I'm arguing solely from a policy perspective and would have changed my mind had you convinced me of your flag's notability. But if we're now slinging accusations of conflicts of interest and checking each other's histories? I didn't bring it up, but I have noticed that your only contributions so far have been Aynvaul symbols. ScholarGray's few activities also revolved only around the same topic. Now that looks like a C-o-I, I think. --Enyavar (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
[edit] also I just see this now, but you were arguing a few posts before about "personal files". Hosting a few personal files is a courtesy Commons gives for otherwise productive community members. --Enyavar (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
sorry I thought your profile was marked with "questionable dr's" by the admins with the following: "Collection of questionable DRs
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sarhat bek Varsaman - so, we are now DR-ing self-made "Own works" for "no sources provided" ?
Commons:Deletion requests/File:GDP-per-capita West-Africa 2019.jpg - So, we are doing this now: deleting files as "unfree" for merely allegations
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Location results from WMUK BL georeferencing pilot phase.jpg - so we are now uploader-admitted screenshots from Google Maps because "CopyVio is no valid reason for deletion" " RiderValor (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
1. @RiderValor Me and @Enyavar have/had a consensus, you have to wait for an admin to rule. 2. "it seems like the common critique from others is he is DRing based more on his own personal opinion rather than actual wikicommons policy. I agree with scholar." Can we please keep this a professional and productive talk? Thanks. ScholarGray13 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Escudo de Bornos.svg

Porque no está actualizado Turismo de Bornos (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep «De oro, tres fajas de sinople; y al timbre, corona real abierta»: escudo es válido; ver también Category:Symbols of Bornos
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Escudo Bornos.svg

No es el escudo oficial, no esta actualizado Turismo de Bornos (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Por favor, desde el Ayuntamiento estamos intentando que desaparezca ese escudo y que aparezca el que hemos subido Turismo de Bornos (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep «De oro, tres fajas de sinople; y al timbre, corona real abierta»: escudo es válido; ver también Category:Symbols of Bornos
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Standup Paddle - Madu Ganga Estuary - Srilanka - Kumaran.jpg

photo grabbed from Facebook, see FBMD and watermark Solomon203 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment. Username does match watermark. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Pierre le bucheron from Needrock.jpg

Uploaded to facebook in March 2023 here -- Deadstar (msg) 10:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Cyberbunker.png

Valid party flag can be found as SVG file File:Pirate Party flag.svg. That flag was adopted by some criminal enterprise that sometimes moonlighted as a "micronation". Bad name, duplicate of the actual SVG; file unused. Enyavar (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Buenas tardes: Desde el Ayuntamiento de Bornos estamos intentando que aparezca el escudo del pueblo que subio el propio Ayuntamiento pero siempre aparece este otro que no esta actualizado. Podrían arreglarlo, por favor? Turismo de Bornos (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
¿¿El escudo de armas de tu ciudad es realmente la bandera del partido pirata de Suecia?? --Enyavar (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
I think this comment was misplaced - it was pasted across a couple of unrelated discussions. It was probably meant for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo Bornos.svg and/or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo de Bornos.svg. Omphalographer (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Banderaupec.png

Broken (?) file. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 10:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Anona Reticulata.jpg

Datei wird nicht genutzt, ein hochaufgelöster Scan der selben Illustration existiert hier: File:Berthe Hoola van Nooten53.jpg Cuello de pepino (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw my deletion request since there appear to be multiple issues with the choice of categories and other duplicates, which should be resolved first. Cuello de pepino (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Het blad en de vrucht van de Anona reticulata L. TMnr 3401-1685.jpg

Datei wird nicht genutzt, ein hochaufgelöster Scan der selben Illustration existiert hier: File:Berthe Hoola van Nooten53.jpg Cuello de pepino (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC) New Caledonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-35597-93 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Flagloverandreuploader (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: Proposed flags of micronations and independence movements, not backed up by sources

Enyavar (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep File:Proposed Flag of Gedeo Zone.jpg and File:Republic of Kivu.gif because they have sources and File:Proposed Flag of Chenoui.jpg because from what I found, this flag is used in real life. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Facebook now is a "source"? Regarding the proposed Chenoui flag, there are a lot of flags with the Amazigh symbol floating around and some even being waved in real life. So, care to show your findings so that I can come to the same conclusion? --Enyavar (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
1. The link to Facebook proves that this flag is indeed widespread in real life.
2. Here the person mentions about encountering this flag in real life, therefore it is indeed used. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Re Gedeo: One (1!) Facebook post means that a flag is in widespread use? When I G-search "Gedeo flag", I get multiple very different results, many just variations of the Ethiopian flag. There is only one result with horizontal green-white-blue and seven stars... and that result is this file here on Commons. Widespread use should look different.
Re Kivu: FotW explains that a flag like this was proliferated in a protest movement in 2020, when it first appeared. Image searches can find me four actual photos of physical flags. However, there are several variants of the horizontal blue-black-yellow design, including one with three instead of just one star. And then there is this flag, which is very different but appears to enjoy just as much use out there (i.e. little).
Re Chenoui: The reddit post itself is about a different flag that also features three horizontal stripes and the Amazigh logo. Trying to identify the supposed RL example, one user then posted a copy of our flag here on Commons, linking it to the Chenoui. Not sure that proves much. One other example that I found is this website which shows a plethora of historical fantasy flags of Algeria, and lists two Chenoui flags as "bonus material".
So granted, the Kivu and Chenoui flags appear to have a bit of backup. But I'm still not convinced that is "widespread". --Enyavar (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I found another image of Chenoui flag in Instagram, but I'm not sure it's enough. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Custard apple or Bullock's heart (Annona reticulata L.); fru Wellcome V0042682.jpg

Datei wird nicht genutzt, ein hochaufgelöster Scan der selben Illustration existiert hier: File:Berthe Hoola van Nooten53.jpg Cuello de pepino (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep They are not identical, though they are clearly both copies of the same page. I would say keep and link them with {{Other version}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
You are right. I would like to withdraw my deletion request. Cuello de pepino (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk · contribs)

Out of scope imagery and logos. Unused and unsourced (or with defunct websites as sources)

Enyavar (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit, also:

Thanks, --Enyavar (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep File:Rees Coat of Arms.png because, judging by the archive link, it was not invented by the user. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I marked everything of their uploads which was unused and not veryfiable. Judging by the other content in that category, the Rees CoA features 3 swans, not 3 ravens? The source is no longer accessible, making it pretty hard to verify. --Enyavar (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Original image source: https://web.archive.org/web/20061007091159/https://www.heraldry.ws/html/rees-wales.html. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Welcome to the euro Bulgaria 02.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Didym as no permission (No permission since) Krd 13:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletion, IMO no FIOP, no permisison, also File:Welcome to the euro Bulgaria 01.jpg Krd 13:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
See COM:FOP Bulgaria, which is effectively none, as it is restricted to non-commercial use (i.e. not free]).
That said, what is being protected here? FOP is not a requirement unless something in the subject is protectable. All I can see here would be the design of the Euro coin and the specific face for the Bulgarian variant. I suspect the answer is non-free, but can anyone confirm what protection applies to the design of Euro coins, and to this specifically Bulgarian one? Bulgarian currency is generally protected, but how about Euros? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Bulgarian rights are irrelevant here because the image was taken in Brussels and not in Bulgaria. Belgium has FOP.
Even if FOP does not apply to the banner here, the banner as a whole is a work of the European Commission (see full banner) and therefore subject to a free license under {{European Commission}}. Derkoenig (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I see from the second image that the location is Brussels. In which case yes, Belgian FOP would apply and so  Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Why would FOP be applicable to a temporary banner? The national side of the euro coin is copyrighted for bulgarian coins. --Didym (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
What are you claiming is protected here? The design of the Bulgarian coin? Or the design of the banner?
To claim that the design of the coin is still protected, you'd have to show that the banner (which would be the primary item infringing that) preserves that copyright such that it can in turn be infringed by photographing the banner. To claim that the banner is protected, you'd have to show that it somehow falls outside Belgian FOP. Even though most FOP laws are spefcifically worded to show that permanent installations are definitely covered by this and may be photographed, that doesn't mean that trivial temporary structures (and banners) somehow attract even more protection. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Creator:Esa Timonen

created by mistake and not a necessary template Ipr1 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nmoq.jpg

Sorry for that. A cool building and nice photograph but there is no FOP in Qatar, see COM:FOP Qatar. Msb (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:SAM3720 Маркс ул Либкнехта 32 - Особняк.jpg

  • also file:SAM3743 Маркс ул Либкнехта 32 - Особняк.jpg

    There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. I do not know, who is the sculptor and when the statue was installed. Taivo (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

    According to Russian jurisprudence, no infringement is constituted when photographs of 3D objects are used (see the link to the official document below).
    Согласно постановлению Арбитражного суда Российской Федерации, фотография трёхмерного произведения является новым произведением, не тождественным первоначальному произведению. Использование фотографий не нарушает исключительное право на первоначальное произведение. Выдержка из постановления:
    "Для констатации нарушения исключительного права на произведение
    следует установить, что использовано было именно данное произведение.
    ...
    В частности, под воспроизведением произведения
    понимается повторное придание произведению объективной формы, допускающей
    восприятие третьими лицами.
    ...
    Лицо, распространившее информацию, использовало фотографии, а не
    произведение дизайна, фотографии не могут быть признаны повторным приданием
    произведению дизайна объективной формы, допускающей восприятие третьими
    лицами;
    ...
    Фотографии является новым произведением, не тождественным
    произведению дизайна (ст.1259 ГК РФ)."
    ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
    арбитражного суда апелляционной инстанции
    по проверке законности и обоснованности решений (определений)
    арбитражных судов, не вступивших в законную силу
    город Ростов-на-Дону дело № А53-21574/2008
    02 июня 2009 г. 15АП-2223/2009
    https://kad.arbitr.ru/Document/Pdf/04282707-8e0b-4bed-ad6c-61cf37fc0fb4/0b759ae9-125f-47e4-84db-0b1f95d2613b/A53-21574-2008_20090602_Postanovlenie_apelljacionnoj_instancii.pdf?isAddStamp=True ~2026-70068-4 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Interior of St. Paul (Munich)

copyright violation; artist of stained glass windows died in 2023; no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)


Keep most of them for which I consider the artwork de minimis, those photo's show an overview of the church interior. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
German dm-rules don't agree to that, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#De_minimis. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Irdeto.jpg

{ {Duplicate|Logo of Irdeto (2015).svg} } PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Delete superseded by File:Logo of Irdeto (2015).svg Taylor 49 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Does this need to be a vote? My other similar deletion requests for duplicates were processed immediately. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
@Taylor 49 Ping. Could you delete it? PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Jesuitenkirche (Trier)

copyright violation, artist of stained glass windows died in 1998, no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)


Keep most of them for which I consider the artwork de minimis, those photo's show an overview of the church interior. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
German dm-rules don't „agree“ to that, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#De_minimis. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep The stained glass windows are clearly not the focus, but are located in the background of the image. --Zinnmann (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Diese Bemerkung gilt nicht für mein widerrechtlich hochgeladenes Bild, sondern allgemein für den Umgang mit dem Instrument der Minimis. Ich verstehe auch, dass Du im Zweifelsfall streng urteilst, aber man kann dabei im Einzelfall über das Ziel hinausschießen. So wird beispielsweise bei Wikipedia Commons:De minimis das Bild "the Louvre pyramid" sehr wahrscheinlich zu den Minimis gerechnet. Ich würde das nicht so sehen und als rechtswidrig beurteilen Es ist eben eine rechtliche Grauzone, ein dunkleres Grau kann man vertreten, aber ein fast Schwarz ist sicher nicht die richtige Lösung. Dguendel 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep artwork de minimis, overview of the church interior.Szilas (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Муравьева-Амурского 19 - памятные таблички на фасаде.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptors' copyright. The plaques were installed after 1990 and they are still protected with copyright. I do not know, who are the sculptors and when they died. Taivo (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Interior of the Church of Our Lady (Trier)

copyright violation; stained glass windows by Le Chevallier (d. 1987) / A. Stettner (d. 1957) (see https://www.glasmalerei-ev-web.de/pages/b9406/b9406.shtml); no freedom of panorama.

Martin Sg. (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)


Keep most of them for which I consider the artwork de minimis, those photo's show an overview of the church interior. Qwertzu111111 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
According to german dm-rules it's not possible, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#De_minimis. Martin Sg. (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
this is not true Qwertzu111111 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
German copyright law states the "any reproduction, distribution, and communication in public of a work shall be admissible if the work is to be regarded as an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter of the reproduction, distribution, or communication in public."
So when keeping that in mind, I suggest the following (going through the list from top to bottom):
  • Keep the top four photographs in the list as they focus on the medieval painted vaults. The windows are not the focus and the designs in the stained glass not clearly visible and/or distorted by perspective. Keep them.
  • File:Interior of the Church of Our Lady (Trier) 12.JPG gives an overall view of the interior space of the church. The windows are not the subject and not the focus. The windows are mostly overexposed and the designs not clearly visible. Keep them.
  • File:Interior of the Church of Our Lady (Trier) 15.JPG focusses on the architecture of the choir. The windows are much more prominently in view but also overexposed. I don't know about this one.
  • The two photographs by @Qwertzu111111: Same as the first four pictures. Keep them.
  • File:Kirchenfenster Liebfrauenkirche.jpg should be deleted. I don't think this needs an explanation.
  • File:Liebfrauenbasilika, Trier Westfenster, Maria im Strahlenkranz.jpg should be deleted.
  • File:Liebfrauenkirche (6406068355).jpg focusses on the interior space and the medieval architecture of the church. Keep.
  • File:Liebfrauenkirche (Trier) Innenansicht.jpg same as above.
  • File:Liebfrauenkirche Trier Innenraum 01.jpg may be problematical. Not because of the windows, but because of the altar stone.
  • File:Trier - Katholische Pfarrkirche Liebfrauen 01, 02, and 03 again focus on the medieval architecture, not the windows. As these are my own pictures, I'll happily let someone else pass judgement on them.
  • File:Trier Liebfrauenkirche Innen 1.JPG may be problematical because of the altar, even though the actual sculpting is hidden.
  • File:Trier Liebfrauenkirche Innen Altar.JPG shows a modern altarpiece with a number of works of art that will be problematical. Best delete.
  • File:Trier Liebfrauenkirche R01.jpg focuses on the general interior space and architecture. The windows won't be a problem. I don't think the altar is either since its just something that happens to be in the room. An "an immaterial supplement in comparison to the actual subject matter" as it were.
  • File:Trier, Liebfrauenbasilika 01.JPG should be deleted as it focuses purely on the windows and their designs.
  • The final two pictures again focus on the inner space of the church and the architecture in general. Both the windows and the altar are insignificant features in the background. Keep them.
GVR (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Una Película de Minecraft logo.png

1) It does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore NOT in the public domain.

2) Incorrect licence information.

3) Above COM:TOO US, complex logo.

4) Does not efficiently provide the source of the image. Franar8 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Mastersofrheuniverselogo.png

1) It does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore NOT in the public domain.

2) Incorrect licence information.

3) Above COM:TOO US, complex logo.

4) Does not efficiently provide the source of the image. Franar8 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. US has a particularly high threshold of originality for logos which consist only of text effects. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

File:TheSuperMarioGalaxyMovieLogo.webp, File:SMG Film logo.png

1) It does meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore NOT in the public domain. 2) Incorrect licence information. 3) Above COM:TOO US, complex logo. Franar8 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Stemma San Vito.png

Copyviol from https://www.comune.sanvitodeinormanni.br.it/Vivere-il-comune/Informazioni-generali/Stemma-e-gonfalone#page-content . Antonio1952 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This coat of arms was published on the San Vito dei Normanni municipality website under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). I apologize for my error. This deletion request can be revoked. Antonio1952 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

File:صورة شخصية نجلاء صوان.jpg

ملفي خاص اتراجع عن نشره نجلاء صوان (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Smolensk,Gagarin Avenue, 1 - 01.jpg

  • also file:Smolensk,Gagarin Avenue, 1 - 02.jpg

    There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1939 statue and protected with copyright in USA until 2035 (95+1 years from creation) – in Russia maybe more, depends on when the sculptor died. Taivo (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

    Isn't this just part of the building like a gargoyle? Nakonana (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    This wouldn't be protected by US copyright, so the only question would be Russian copyright. Nakonana (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    The sculptures are indeed part of the building and are explicitly listed as part of the facade and part of the protected cultural heritage, therefore I'd say that they fall under FoP US.
    As for Russia, the architect of the building was Илья Петрович Райский (born 1889). He was arrested in 1949 for counterrevolutionary activities and, in 1950, sentenced to 25 years in correctional labour camp. I can't find a death date. Sources: . Nakonana (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Волочаевская, 162 - скульптуры у входа, 2006 примерно год.jpg

  • also file:Волочаевская, 162 - скульптуры, 2006 год.jpg

    There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Uploader claims, that the sculptures were installed in circa 2006, that case the sculptor is likely still living. Taivo (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

    В первый раз слышу, чтобы в России скульптуры, стоящие на улице рядом со зданием для украшения входа, было запрещено фотографировать и выкладывать в публичный доступ. в пункте 2 статьи 1276 Гражданского кодекса РФ указано, что можно свободно использовать изображения произведений архитектуры, градостроительства и садово-паркового искусства, расположенных в таком месте или видных из него. Эти скульптуры стоят рядом с учебным заведением и не относятся к закрытой для посторонних территории. ~2026-66426-4 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Ну, теперь слышите. Это здесь не архитектура и не садово-парковое искусство, а скульптуры. А является ли место открытой или закрытой – в некоторых государствах имеет значение, в России нет. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
According to Russian jurisprudence, no infringement is constituted when photographs of 3D objects are used (see the link to the official document below).
Согласно постановлению Арбитражного суда Российской Федерации, фотография трёхмерного произведения является новым произведением, не тождественным первоначальному произведению. Использование фотографий не нарушает исключительное право на первоначальное произведение. Выдержка из постановления:
"Для констатации нарушения исключительного права на произведение
следует установить, что использовано было именно данное произведение.
...
В частности, под воспроизведением произведения
понимается повторное придание произведению объективной формы, допускающей
восприятие третьими лицами.
...
Лицо, распространившее информацию, использовало фотографии, а не
произведение дизайна, фотографии не могут быть признаны повторным приданием
произведению дизайна объективной формы, допускающей восприятие третьими
лицами;
...
Фотографии является новым произведением, не тождественным
произведению дизайна (ст.1259 ГК РФ)."
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ
арбитражного суда апелляционной инстанции
по проверке законности и обоснованности решений (определений)
арбитражных судов, не вступивших в законную силу
город Ростов-на-Дону дело № А53-21574/2008
02 июня 2009 г. 15АП-2223/2009
https://kad.arbitr.ru/Document/Pdf/04282707-8e0b-4bed-ad6c-61cf37fc0fb4/0b759ae9-125f-47e4-84db-0b1f95d2613b/A53-21574-2008_20090602_Postanovlenie_apelljacionnoj_instancii.pdf?isAddStamp=True ~2026-70068-4 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The sculptor is Данил Цой. I can't find any birth date but the linked interview is from 2023, the sculptor looks quite young, and those two sculptures were made for his college diploma. Nakonana (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Escudo.Union.Estudiantil.C.E-Photoroom.png

Source country unclear, but I suspect it exceeds COM:TOO US as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Павшим за родину сотрудникам ТГУ.jpg

  • also file:Павшим за родину сотрудникам ТГУ (2).jpg

    There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1967 monument and protected with copyright in USA until 2063 (95+1 years from creation) – in Russia maybe more, depends on when the sculptor died. Taivo (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

    Can't find any information on the sculptor. University that sponsored the creation of the monument does not name the sculptor on their website even though they list the sculptors of other monuments. Towiki says that the sculptor is unknown. Nakonana (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Памятник Ленину. Пос. Победа.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. This is 1967 statue and protected with copyright until 2063 (95+1 years from publication) – in Russia maybe more, depends on when the sculptor died. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I plan to search for the sculptor but am currently abroad and thus encounter geo-block issues when trying to access my usual sources for sculptors of Lenin statues, so if the deletion could be held off at least until May for me to check, that would be appreciated. Nakonana (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Перезахоронения 1954-1956 Гурки (Мясоедово), Вяземский район, Смоленская область.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Russia for sculpture and probably the photo violates sculptor's copyright. If this is 1956 statue, then it is protected with copyright in USA until 2052 (95+1 years from creation) – in Russia maybe more, depends on when the sculptor died. Taivo (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

1956 statue per the official cultural heritage passport. No sculptor is given in the document. Nakonana (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Morce domaci.jpeg

Blurry image, many superior images of guinea pigs exist Dronebogus (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Cochon d'Inde Doudou.jpg

Grainy image that doesn’t focus on its subject Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Gijón - Plaza del Carmen 2.JPG

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). I have no idea why the "own work" claim was doubted. Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This picture was taken by me on August 19, 2011 and was uploaded by me, user Zarateman, on March 5, 2016, tagging with the CC0 1.0 license. What's the matter? Zarateman (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
@Εὐθυμένης: could you please either explain what you thought was a problem here, or withdraw the request for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel: A combination between absence/lack of metadata + the low size (not sure how I should properly describe this) in contrast with the file's rather large resolution. In most cases, this is usually a hint that the photo was taken from somewhere else. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 19:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
@Εὐθυμένης: That is not what you said. You said "no source." Zarateman is a longstanding user with little or no history of problematic uploads. Surely this was not a reasonable candidate for speedy deletion. Does your remark here mean you believe he is making a false claim of ownership? - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Compare File:Gijón - Plaza del Carmen 1.JPG, File:Gijón - Plaza del Carmen 3.JPG, File:Gijón - Plaza del Carmen 4.JPG. They all seem quite consistent with this and with one another. Are you saying he poached all of these from somewhere? - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)