Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/23

February 23

File:Bukit Panjang MRT station Artwork (2025).jpg

Violates Singapore's Freedom of Paranoma; does not apply for 2D works ZKang123 (talk) 00:30, 23 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 Mustaze (talk · contribs)

Uploader does not own the rights to any of these files

Trade (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe some of these digitizations were done by the person, so it is an "own work" in that sense since in some jurisidictions that is a separate copyright. The photos are problematic, but many of the logos/flags are too simple to be copyrighted (e.g. File:Borotba logo.svg) or seem to be out of copyright (some of the sigils). So keep some of them with corrected licensing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
agree
some of the symbols belong to defunct organizations mustazik (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photos_from_television_footage_of_Intelsat-708_launch.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Long_March_3B_on_LC-2.png are from the cox report therefore they are in the public domain, therefore they should not be deleted mustazik (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Could we get a time stamp for Mayelin village.png? Hard to know where in the video its from otherwise Trade (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
would have given it if the file was still up mustazik (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
You can fill a request at Commons:Undeletion requests Trade (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Most of these are own work created by the user, the flags seem to be fine, the photos are the only real problem Idrinklisterine (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
https://www.nop.org.pl/2015/05/08/stanowisko-nop-w-sprawie-wyborow-prezydenckich-a-d-2015/
Are you sure this is own work? Trade (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
These files aren't a problem because they're simple graphics, or their most complex element is in the public domain. I've corrected the licenses.
Swiãtopôłk (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I added country names for clarification Trade (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
According to Commons:Bulgaria there is no evidence that Bulgaria have such a high TOO so they should be deleted per Commons:PCP Trade (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Also under what number are the Ukrainian flags supposed to be PD? Trade (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@Trade The sword and hammer is an anonymous work from Germany in the 1930s. Without it, all that remains are a few circles and inscriptions in a simple font. Even a simple TOO will cover this. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Could you indicate the source of the sword and hammer in the files? Trade (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I cant help but notice that the user have continued to upload files with the wrong license even after i made this DR. Any suggestions what we should do about it? Trade (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I propose removing the crown from File:Creativity Movement - World Church Of the Creator Flag.svg and keeping the file as a simplified version. Pantarch (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Sure Trade (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
That wouldn't be accurate, though, so I would oppose that, it wouldn't be the actual flag. I think they started using that symbol pre-1989 (I believe in the early 1970s?) and I don't think they copyrighted it. If I can find where I saw that then it can just be retagged. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Actually, I will vote  Keep on the COTC flag. There is a VRT ticket for the COTC logo , which is the only creative part of the flag. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)


Kept: Closed. It can be reopened for only those files that are clearly above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mustaze (talk · contribs)

This is far outside the scope of {{PD-simple}}

Trade (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep on the COTC flag. There is a VRT ticket for the COTC logo , which is the only creative part of the flag. That was uploaded by someone with a COTC affiliation (they uploaded a photo they took of the leader's headstone, which is on his private property), so even though I can't see it it seems plausible.
On the others
I have my questions about the Zadruzny krag ones as that seems like a fairly basic heraldric eagle that is up to interpretation.
The rest,  Delete PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Could you please just use the actual names of the files you wanna keep? Trade (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep on the svgs
 Delete on the non svgs Azores191 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Keep File:Creativity Movement - World Church Of the Creator Flag.svg, maybe keep File:Zadruzy Krag Flaga.svg and File:Zadruzny krag.svg Otherwise, delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
File:New Democracy flag.svg and File:New Democracy Emblem.svg should also be left as they are based on a public domain image (see Category:Strasserist symbols and the previous request). Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

File:AnansiDeclined.svg

COM:NOTUSED Sushiya (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:For Yukutoshi Kurutoshi.jpg

COM:NOTUSED Sushiya (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Kouprey (Bos sauveli).jpg

According to the file's description page, the author of this work, Georges Broihanne, died in 1968. This photo is still copyrighted in France until 2039. ✗plicit 01:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If this is the case, I agree it should be deleted. I initially found this file via iNaturalist hosted as CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr. Original photo posting on Flickr here.
I am unsure about the original provenance of the image. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
For what's it's worth, there's a page about Broihanne here which supports the 1968 date of death, and fits with what it says in the cited source. No mention of this specific photo, of course. Anaxial (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete. I confirmed that Achille Urbain (1939, BHL) credited the photo to G. Broihanne. 火乃狐 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Map of Missouri highlighting the Lead Belt.gif

Given File:Southeast_Missouri_Lead_District_-_subdistricts_map.svg and the article at w:en:Southeast Missouri Lead District, which shows several counties that this doesn't, and shows that several counties include only very small areas related to the lead belt, this map lacks utility. Base map is a raster, from a generic source, and the highlights are just flood fills. TheFeds 05:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Missouri Lead Belt counties locator v1.svg

Given File:Southeast_Missouri_Lead_District_-_subdistricts_map.svg and the article at w:en:Southeast Missouri Lead District, which shows several counties that this doesn't, and shows that several counties include only very small areas related to the lead belt, this map lacks utility. Inset of state of Missouri is reasonable as an aid to location, but despite the name of the district, this isn't really a state-level geographic feature (it's just geology). TheFeds 05:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:TaskMGR.png

Unused, author request, and I think this file is also not eligible on Commons? MinhVN1863 (talk) 06:11, 23 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.

File:Sigri006 (1.jpg

Small size, lacks EXIF, user has uploaded many copyvio, possibly a copyvio. C messier (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Not that small, lacking Exif is not a reason, not found on the web prior to its upload here. --Rosenzweig τ 19:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Sigri006 (1.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 06:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep unless there is a reason to doubt the own work claim which was not given in the prior discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Road job 448 -Excavations in a road corridor, Ireland.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Mattbr as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I was notified, but this file was uploaded in 2015 with the stated licence by en:User_talk:Dingwalk. Their talkpage seems to consist of deleted file notifications, so perhaps this is going to be another. The file was created by Rubicon Heritage Services (per here) and I cannot see a valid licence at the moment. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Ray Morgon 2023.png

This file was initially tagged by Robertsky as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Keith Darvill Havering portrait.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Robertsky as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:John Tyler Havering portrait.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Robertsky as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

While @MRSC had updated the page to use the London Borough of Havering Transparency and Open Data Charter as permission, the charter was explicit that only data published on a certain page would be of open license nature: https://www.havering.gov.uk/council-data-spending/council-transparency-information. Robertsky (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Darren Wise Havering portrait.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Robertsky as no permission (No permission since) Krd 06:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Excluzo Lobby.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). There is no indication that this is not an own work. C messier (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Buste Marie-Antoinette.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Günther Frager as no permission (No permission since). I guess it was added because the name in the EXIF is different from the user name. Not sure if this enough to speedy delete the files. They are full size and with EXIF (and all are from the same author). C messier (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The same applies for

File:Λιμάνι Θεσσαλονίκης.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). It is mentioned to be an own work. No evidense for this being untrue. C messier (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Παραλία Θεσσαλονίκης.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). It is mentioned to be an own work. No evidense for this being untrue. C messier (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Platanoshouse.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Dw no source since (dw no source since). It looks like a scanned film. There is no evidense that the original photo isn't an own work. C messier (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Palamashouse.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Dw no source since (dw no source since). It looks like a scanned film. There is no evidense that the original photo isn't an own work. C messier (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Peladaclose.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Dw no source since (dw no source since). It looks like a scanned film. There is no evidense that the original photo isn't an own work. C messier (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Liath Luachra.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). There is no evidense that this isn't an own work. C messier (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:OpenGovhub space.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since). It is mentioned to be an own work. No evidense for this being untrue. C messier (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Blason fam de OstFrise.svg

Eigenartige Variante, weicht erheblich von den anderen Wappen ab, siehe ʽCategory:Coats of arms of Ostfriesland-Rietberg familyʼ, Richtigkeit anhand der angegebenen Quelle nicht überprüfbar (toter Link). Ein falsches Wappen ist out of scope. GerritR (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Sultan Ali Yusuf Kenadid.png

False licence indicated (the source is BY-NC-ND), no indication of PD as well. Quick1984 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info author of this image died in 1959, so this file should be restored in 2030. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Did he write the book that contains the images, or was he the photographer? --RAN (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'd prefer that sooner or later you'd get rid of your disingenuous practice of replacing the license without saying a word about it in the discussion and creating the impression that the DR is deliberately groundless. Quick1984 (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep It isn't clear if Cesare Maria de Vecchi (1884-1959) wrote the book that the images appear in, or took the images himself. The writing is in Italian, so published in Italy, Italy only protects images for 20 years. {{PD-Italy}} It also is not clear if the image was taken prior to 1927 or prior to 1936, Wikipedia has two death years listed for Ali Yusuf Kenadid. {{PD-Somalia}} also applies, the image was created there. Somalia is not a signatory to the URAA. --RAN (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a Somali weaver.jpg

False license indicated (BY-NC-SA at the source provided), no evidence of PD as well. Quick1984 (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by YadgarFayaq (talk · contribs)

Out of scope. Self promotional images, not in use.

Smooth O (talk) 09:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Limegreencoral (talk · contribs)

False licence indicated (the source is BY-NC-ND), no indication of PD as well.

Quick1984 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mikhail Kizilov.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Pessimist2006 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Fake licence. Not own work. Quick1984 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Size / resolution / metadata seem to be consistent, no evidence of copyright violation provided. Quick1984 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
How did the person in the photo technically organize the photo shoot of himself at a public press conference? Трифонов Андрей (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
For it to be his own work, he had to be on stage and in the audience at the same time. Pessimist (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Emmen Center heute 2.jpg

Veraltetes Bild, wird in falschen Zusammenhängen verwendet Emmen1975 (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Emmen Center heute 1.jpg

Veraltetes Bild, wird in falschen Zusammenhängen verwendet Emmen1975 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Emmen Center.jpeg

Veraltetes Bild, wird in falschen Zusammenhängen verwendet Emmen1975 (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/Автор = Latitude

The status of background is not clear, these are probably derivatives of a copyrighted map. All these files were transferred from the Russian Wikipedia, whereto it was uploaded by ru:user:Latitude. Other maps uploaded by them have since been deleted by local admins as copyright violations among other their uploads.

Komarof (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info other files by that user recently restored.
About this files: they should be  Keep, if author just downloaded them from other sites, he at least added link to it as he made there.
Also I used image research and didn't found what that maps was published before wikipedia, so Latitude IS author of this files and we should not delete them. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
All 9 maps and backgrounds - {{PD-map}}. No original information contained, only common knowledge.  Keep. Nyuhn (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Egyptian Armed Forces Logo.png

This is a homemade copy of an official emblem ("Own Work" of uploader) but its copyright status is listed as Official Document. Commons sholud be seeking a copyright-compliant version of the actual official emblem. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I know this is not a valid answer but the Egyptian Armed Forces don't have a specific logo to work with, if you go to the official website https://www.mod.gov.eg/ModWebSite/
you can see clearly that they don't use one versions of the same logo, but 3 versions, one on the top right and one for the posts and one for other uses.
if you go to their official Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/EgyArmySpox/ you can see another version of the same logo used in the cover of the page.
I know the problem is with the licensing but here in Egypt specifically the government logos or insignias don't follow a specific code or pattern, every government agency can update their logo whatever they like anyday anytime.
Thank you in advance for your understanding. MohamedHelmyOff (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
That page that you copied the logo from, https://www.mod.gov.eg/ModWebSite/, has a *copyright* symbol on it. You cannot *copy* that emblem, it breeches the MOD's copyright. What you need to find is a free-use usable file of that same image. If the EAF doesn't have a standard emblem, also, if there are 4+ versions, then don't try to create the impression that there *is* a standard emblem!! You're creating "wiki-lies."
We need to follow United States copyright law. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the only solution to this problem is to replace the current logo with any of the versions available on the MOD website. MohamedHelmyOff (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Joan-Carles-Ventura- veu.ogg

The person recording it got some pronunciations wrong. Ricard Soler Roger (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Blason ville fr Cap-Ferret (Gironde) alias.svg

No reference is provided for this CoA which is most likely fictional, i.e. out of scope.
Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ce blason est non officiel mais repris/utilisé par des fabricants d'écusson et d'adhésif et présent sur divers sites http://quaranta1.chez-alice.fr/ecussons/aquitaine/cap_ferret.html, https://www.kroma-serigraphie.fr/product-page/cap-ferret et https://web.archive.org/web/20191212013203/https://armorialdefrance.fr/page_blason.php?ville=751
Bien étiqueté comme fictif/non officiel, je pense qu'il a sa place Blazooner (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/insource:"gareth1953"

These are creep shoots, just look at the descriptions. Many of of them are reporting wardrobe malfunctions like "wedgies", "downblouse" or they just center on female private parts. In some he is clearly stalking underage girls. See also this DR of the same Flickr user. None of these photo were taken with consent and we have enough consensual candid photos to justify giving space to a stalker.

 Weak keep can be used as example of bondage, but otherwise useless Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
 Weak keep potentially useful (typical beach scene), although not valuable and replaceable. If decision will be "keep", I would rename it to "Woman in bikini at the beach in West Wittering.jpg". Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete poor visibility, better alternatives available Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Günther Frager (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep File:Ibiza Port - Sept 2016 - Come Here Boy Candid.jpg - no valid deletion reason given. Description has been edited. As this file has been kept why delete this one? Юрий Д.К. 11:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    It is an non-consensual downblouse photo. The photographer waited until the women bent over to take a snap at her cleavage, and that is quite explicit from the description that you erased. That is the reason (and it is part of my request). Apart from that, the photo was taken in Spain where the legislation forbids the publication of photos without the consent . Günther Frager (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I know. But it is a side photo and the women is unidentifiable, so it may be kept. The rest is just random low-quality shots (except may be File:West Wittering - Sept 2012 (8831266714).jpg). And how about Category:Women of Spain? Have these identifiable women given their written consent to be published on Commons? Why there are still here? BTW, Commons now hosts tons of images of ugly identifiable women and no one, sadly, want to delete them. If the result will be delete I suggest undeleting this one in the far future, when no one will care anymore. Юрий Д.К. 12:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I know Sorry, I have nothing to discuss with you if you argue that non-consensual downblouse photos are fine to host in Commons. The argument "but you should first delete all this other photos" is not a valid reason to keep a photo. And there is a huge difference between a photo were a person poses or look a the camera and other were and a creepshoot. This DR is not about aesthetics but about consent and dignity, something that you are missing if I'm not mis-interpreting your last sentence. Günther Frager (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I have nothing to discuss with you if you think that photo of unidentifiable woman is really a photo of non-consensual downblouse (sic!) and this photo of unidentifiable woman is not ok for Commons. You even have claimed that "in Spain where the legislation forbids the publication of photos without the consent" but this is nothing to do here because the law belongs to identifiable persons Юрий Д.К. 13:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    First the face is visible, so it is a identifiable person. Second, there was no consent regardless if you consider the woman unidentified. Third, it is a downblouse photo. Finally, from COM:CREEP, that I linked in my previous comment : The way a photo is taken may make it permanently unacceptable, in the absence of consent, regardless of how it is edited. In particular, such photos remain unacceptable even if the subject is made unidentifiable. (emphasis is mine). Günther Frager (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Example of a visible face (i.e. identifiable person) is here. This photo is completely different from what we're discussing. I don't think this woman's side view can be considered "photo of identifiable person". COM:CREEP is completely irrelevant here because "downblouse" is almost invisible here. There is a photo where "downblouse" is obvious (just compare). Юрий Д.К. 13:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    You are confusing concepts. A downblouse is a voyeuristic image of the view down a woman's blouse, showing her cleavage . You example is of photo of a fashion model wearing revealing clothes in a catwalk taken by a professional photographer, he is neither hiding nor taking it from a questionable angle and the model is not revealing her cleavage by accident, i.e. it is not a downblouse photo because it is not voyeuristic to begin with. The photo in this DR is voyeuristic and the woman, contrary to the fashion model form your example, had no intention to display her cleavage or her bra; they are revealed only because she bent down. The intention of the photographer was to exactly capture that moment. A downblouse photo doesn't need to show the areola nor an upskirt photo needs to show the vulva. To identify the person you don't need them to look directly at the camera, but maybe it only applies to men (?). Günther Frager (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I've provided 2 examples of photos above just to make it clear how the discussed woman would be depicted in order to be "voyeuristic". Yes, the photographer very likely a voyeurist and description was unacceptable (removed now, offensive redirect also may be deleted). Here, Gareth1953 failed to create voyeuristic photo, imho. In general, if the photo of this woman would visually something like this or this then, may be some questions. It this case, however {{Personal rights}} may solve the problem. Юрий Д.К. 15:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Here, Gareth1953 failed to create voyeuristic photo, imho waiting for someone to went down so they can snap a picture of the cleavage it not voyeuristic; taking a photo in front of a person is, got it! I have the impression we live in parallel universe. Regarding consent, COM:PIP clearly states Normally, it is sufficient that the uploader asserts that appropriate consent was given. Where the subject is identifiable, the {{Consent}} template may be used for this purpose, but is not required. and points that the three levels of consent and how they vary with countries. In order to apply {{Personal rights}} you will need to first assert that consent to take the picture, required specifically by Spanish law, was given. Do you think that Gareth asked her? Günther Frager (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    "I have the impression we live in parallel universe" - yes, it is. We have completely different views on the concept of whether a person is identifiable or not. I have no doubt that this photo is unidentifiable and therefore shouldn't raise any questions. Regards templates, I won’t argue with you, but the dispute about Spanish law is pointless here imo. Юрий Д.К. 16:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I already pointed out that creepshoots of unidentifiable people are not OK per COM:CREEP. And it is identifiable: the face of the woman is visible, the photo is geolocated and since she is taking a dog for a walk we more or less know the area where she lives, we also know the dog is a small one, we can infer an age range, etc. But, I guess you also don't want to discuss what the section "Identification" in COM:PIP says. Günther Frager (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I completely disagree that this is a "creepshoot" (unlike some of other files on this nom). Just nice woman walks. You probably just see what you want to see. I've never seen such a zealous desire to delete a photo, as if it were a terrible copyright violation and we would all be sued. Where do you see her face? I only see a small side part. If you go for a walk, you'll see lots of similar ones. How you've determined from the coords where she lives? She could be a tourist from any country or she could live anywhere in the Balearic Islands, the area of ​​which is more than 5000 km2. Geolocated data from old cameras is often incorrect, and we can easily delete it if needed. I'm also very curious how you know about the size of the dog if it's not visible here AT ALL. Her age is also highly ambiguous; she could be anywhere from 20 to 40 years old, judging by the photo. Also note that almost 10 years have passed since the photo was taken. PIP - "In particular, such photos remain unacceptable even if the subject is made unidentifiable" - I agree with this, but it is nothing to do in current discussion. May be in case of obvious porn/violence or something like content (creepy and ugly, must deleted) it works. Юрий Д.К. 19:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    • I've never seen such a zealous desire to delete a photo. I'm just replying, with arguments, what I find inconsistent in your assertions.
    • Just nice woman walks Walking? how are you inferring that she is moving her legs? I see her bending over.
    • Where do you see her face? next to the neck. I can see her hose, one eyelid, one eyebrow, the lips, etc. An acquaintance or neighbor will recognize her without problem.
    • How you've determined from the coords where she lives? I didn't say you can get the exact coordinates, but you can infer were she lives as people usually take their dogs for a walk around their houses.
    • She could be a tourist from any country or she could live anywhere in the Balearic Islands it is a matter of probabilities. Finding an Spanish-looking women walking a dog at the end of September (out of peak season), likelihood is that she is local and not a tourist. A German-looking walking in July-August is likely a tourist and not a local.
    • Geolocated data from old cameras is often incorrect what is the accuracy? The original tile started with "Ibiza Port" and it agrees with the geodata .
    • I'm also very curious how you know about the size of the dog if it's not visible here AT ALL. (1) look at the angle of the leash, it is not falling directly to the floor, so the dog is leashed (2) the type of the leash is no suitable for large dogs. (3) you won't put part of the leash around your middle finger if the dog is strong.
    • she could be anywhere from 20 to 40 years old you can read about en:Differential privacy and how you can collect small pieces of knowledge that when you aggregated you can use to deanonimize anonymized datasets.
    • May be in case of obvious porn/violence creepshots and not necessarily pornographic or violent as seen in movies, yet it affects the dignity of the involved people. I nominate photos from a specific Flickr user that takes photo without consent with a clear sexual purpose. Günther Frager (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
      I'm just replying, with arguments, what I find inconsistent in your assertions You simply say that "There is only my opinion, and everyone else is wrong by default.".

Walking? how are you inferring that she is moving her legs? I see her bending over Old Description: "This beautiful Spanish woman was walking her dog". Walked or not, doesn't really matter. At least, on the street in a public place.

"next to the neck. I can see her hose, one eyelid, one eyebrow, the lips, etc. An acquaintance or neighbor will recognize her without problem. Please see how real human faces looks like. "I can see her hose, one eyelid, one eyebrow, the lips" - and you even don't write that you see face (!!!) only parts! We don't care at all whether her neighbor recognizes her or not. He might recognize her even without face, say, by her clothes, hair color or length, etc but that wouldn't make such hypothetical image "a photo of an identifiable person". Let's just delete all the images of hairs and clothes from Spain then; that would be fair.

I didn't say you can get the exact coordinates, but you can infer were she lives as people usually take their dogs for a walk around their houses This is simply an unfounded assumption. It's not for us to decide where she'll be walking, nor to decide where she actually lives. As I said, she could be a tourist from another country or just a visitor to this city.

it is a matter of probabilities. Finding an Spanish-looking women walking a dog at the end of September (out of peak season), likelihood is that she is local and not a tourist. A German-looking walking in July-August is likely a tourist and not a local Spanish-looking, really? But I won't digress from the topic. Even if she's local, it's not a problem, since her face isn't visible and the photo isn't creepy. But this is a matter of probabilities (sic!), this once again shows that the photo is not a "photo of an identifiable person".

what is the accuracy? The original tile started with "Ibiza Port" and it agrees with the geodata Different, the error can reach kilometers. I know this because while I've worked with Flickr files, the coordinates often has been completely wrong. Sometimes even the photos were miscategorized because of the coordinates.

(1) look at the angle of the leash, it is not falling directly to the floor, so the dog is leashed (2) the type of the leash is no suitable for large dogs. (3) you won't put part of the leash around your middle finger if the dog is strong Since the dog is invisible, we can't make assumptions about its appearance. Even if it's small - there are countless small dog breeds, and it could just be a puppy. Also, don't forget that almost 10 years have passed.

you can read about en:Differential privacy and how you can collect small pieces of knowledge that when you aggregated you can use to deanonimize anonymized datasets. Yes, but the available data is certainly not sufficient to identify a person.

creepshots and not necessarily pornographic or violent as seen in movies, yet it affects the dignity of the involved people. I nominate photos from a specific Flickr user that takes photo without consent with a clear sexual purpose I don't see any sexual tint here (common photo of beautiful woman with clothes), even if the author himself did it for sexual purposes. He may have done it for them, but it didn't work out so well for him. Compare it to the other files in this thread. I don't mind deleting them, as I consider them creepy. This photo is not for jerking off, but for aesthetic and educational purposes. The problem may be the sexualized description and file name. But all obscenity has been already removed. In this whole big, unproductive discussion, I only agree that we both lives in different universes. Therefore, I doubt we'll be able to agree on anything here. So let's wait other opinions. I was the most useless discussion and waste time in my life. Bravo. But... I wouldn't be surprised if you win the debates, though. I've explained why below. Юрий Д.К. 22:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

    • You simply say that "There is only my opinion, and everyone else is wrong by default." could you give me the diff where I made such statement? I don't remember making such claim. Please don't put on my mouth things I didn't say.
    • Please see how real human faces looks like is she not real human? What is she? At least if you try to compare something compare it with a side view of a human face. If my response sounded pedantic, remember that your question was Where do you see her face?.
    • We don't care at all whether her neighbor recognizes her or not did you read COM:PIP? I will copy the relevant part: The degree to which a subject is identifiable varies. A photo that includes a clear view of the face is highly identifiable. Other features of the person's body, clothing or the location may help with identifying the subject. Outside of the photo, clues may be obtained from the title, description, origin, source URL, and metadata (including, but not limited to, the geolocation and date). The greater the privacy issues with photo, the more weight should be given to the risk of identification by non-obvious means. [...] Where the law forbids taking or publishing a photograph of a person without consent, and consent has not been given, then making the subject hard to identify (such as blurring their face) is unethical: the photograph should not be uploaded to Commons.. And remember Spain is one of the few countries that requires consent even for taking a photo.
    • He might recognize her even without face, say, by her clothes, hair color or length, etc that exactly why COM:PIP states that blurring a photo is not always a guarantee that the person is not identifiable and discourages it.
    • Let's just delete all the images of hairs and clothes from Spain then; that would be fair you gave almost the same invalid argument before.
    • But this is a matter of probabilities (sic!), this once again shows that the photo is not a "photo of an identifiable person". You are missing completely the point. I as a random Commons user don't need to infer the exact name, address, social security number, etc to determine a subject might be identified. I provided a list of clues to identify her by non-obvious means, as described in COM:PIP. You are just nitpicking that a presumably small dog, might be puppy. That the geolocaton might be wrong and it was taken kilometers away, etc. Everything is probable, the invisible dog might actually be a piglet, she might be he. You just assumed that it was a dog because the description said so and it is very likely that the photographer neither lied nor had a hallucination. You assumed that the person was a woman and not a transvestite because there a more women that transvestites. I'm just asserting scenarios that are the most likely. Most of tourists reach Ibiza by plane and most people don't bring their pet on a plane. Also, people don't take a train to the next city every time they take their dog for a walk. Is that what you call unfounded? Certainty, that is 100% accuracy, is impossible in any real task and it is btw why we don't ask for explicit permission for each photo that is uploaded. If the person is looking at the camera, we assume they gave the consent to take the photo and assume they didn't revoke it. We are not certain about it, but it is a likely possibility. You as another random user won't be able to provide the real names, the address or other data of the people in File:Human faces.jpg, as you are asking me, yet you claim they are identifiable. Günther Frager (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • And regarding COM:PIP, you added it after I replied your initial comment, look at the table "Consent required for action related to a picture of a person in a public place" In Spain you need consent to take the picture, to publish the photo, and to use it commercially. Gareth Williams didn't get the first one. Günther Frager (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I've already replied that the law belongs to identifiable persons while I don't consider this photo of "identifiable person" hence COM:PIP can't work here. I wait other opinions. Although, given the practice of deleting interesting content and keeping obvious junk, I wouldn't be surprised if this photo is also will be deleted (may be hidden also). Юрий Д.К. 13:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    No the law does not apply to identifiable people. You need the consent to take any sort of photo of a person, even if you take the photo in a way that would make the person unidentified. It's simply not allowed to randomly photograph people without asking them if they are OK with it. Nakonana (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Hello. Why you then voted keep for this ? Юрий Д.К. 12:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Because it is part of a public performance. Artists perform to be seen and don't have an expectation of not being looked at or photographed. Germany has also a law similar to Spain where one is not allowed to photograph people without their consent except if those people are speaking/performing/participating in some sort of event or are just part of a crowd of people (basically "de minimis"). Nakonana (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Title of File:Brentford Play-Off Final - May 2013 - Nice Arse (8831693836).jpg be changed, but file is a  Keep as it provides an illustration of game crowds heading to the stadium and signage for the nearby transit station (with related wayfinding signage prominently visible). This image has possible use within the project's keeping. No person is identifiable, either. The photographer's Flickr title for the image (which was retained when uploaded) is pervy, but the photo has a broader focus on the overall crowd of people. SecretName101 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Probably description should be modified. Last sentence is quite creepy. Юрий Д.К. 17:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Юрий Д.К. full agreement on that as well. SecretName101 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Юрий Д.К. would you now agree that it (for the reason I outlined) is in-scope, given your initial view was to support that photo being deleted not seeing an in-scope use for it? SecretName101 (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    I think that if you assess it as in scope, so no reason for deletion. Юрий Д.К. 03:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Also File:Honfleur - Mar 2009 - Pre Raphaelite Beauty (3927178462).jpg

 Weak delete poor visibility except hair, likely isn't useful, but I am not sure. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep this. Because perfectly usable in scope "Red hair". Quality is fine. Also face is not visible, so even {{Personal rights}} not needed Юрий Д.К. 20:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Agreed. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
 Neutral Random shot, similar to other above Evelino Ucelo (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Evelino Ucelo: you making arguments for photos that are not part of this DR. Günther Frager (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
But they are works of the same person, and can be deleted for the same reasons (photos of random people on streets). Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I support deletion of this file. Tagged. Юрий Д.К. 16:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

File:RM1949cover.jpg

Uploader claims to be copyright owner of magazine cover from 1949, the copyright of which will be owned by Railway Modeller (Peco Publications). However, the magazine cover may now be in the public domain, given it was published in the UK 70+yrs ago? LittleDwangs (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Karantanija (osnutek) 2.png

(unnecessary) draft MaksiKavsek (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Iain McKenzie MP (cropped).jpg

This file was initially tagged by AntiCompositeBot as no license (User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag) Sam11333 (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep please, this was created after the copyright information wasn't transferred after a crop. Sam11333 (talk) 19:26, 23 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.

File:Darisya Bayrağı.png

Geçerli bir bayrak olmaktan çıkmıştır Moqtader Qurahisi Apicklan (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Geçerli bir bayrak olmaktan çıkmıştır ve bilgiler çalıntı Apicklan (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Ben yükleyen kişiyim ve silinmesini istiyorum lütfen. Apicklan (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Uploader requests deletion (personal content) Moqtader Apicklan (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)


Kept: not being current is not a reason for deletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Darisya Bayrağı.png

Geçersiz ve eski bayrak Apicklan (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Nizi Project logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Whyiseverythingalreadyused as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source claimed in § Summary is fully copyrighted Yann (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Previous DR was kept. Yann (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Yann. Previous DR was at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by てれとぴあん.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep: sure Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

File:New's key(Atarashii kagi) title.png

This file was initially tagged by Whyiseverythingalreadyused as Copyvio (db-copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source claimed in {{slink|#Summary Previous DR was kept. Yann (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Беной.jpg

Лицензионный статус исходных файлов неясен. Авторы неизвестны. — Redboston 12:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info the source files have been identified and added to the file description in the meantime. Nakonana (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Этот файл нарушает условия лицензий исходных файлов. — Redboston 07:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
Какие условия именно? Nakonana (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Map of Ahal Province.svg

Описание и лицензия без учёта исходного изображения. — Redboston 12:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Info source file and its author have been specified in the meantime. Nakonana (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Нужно проверить соблюдений условий GNU Free Documentation License 1.2, на условиях которой опубликован исходный файл. Возможно, необходимо указать авторов и источник. Я в этом не разбираюсь. Если условия лицензии соблюдаются, то файл можно оставлять. — Redboston 07:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Saint Theodora of Sihla's church at Sihăstria Secului monastery

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Romania.

A1Cafel (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep. Monastery is from 1820s. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Statue of Șerban Cantacuzino, Mihai Buculei, Bucharest

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Romania.

A1Cafel (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)


 Info sculptor: Mihai Buculei (b. 1940). Nakonana (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep the following two pictures, as they depict one of the most important landscapes/landmarks in medieval and 19th century Bucharest. The tower, in its current form, dates back to at least the time of C. Brancoveanu (d. 1715).

- --Micha (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

File:COVID-19 disease control guidance in Tomioka Silk Mill.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Japan A1Cafel (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)


 Keep, with reservations. the little person is probably de minimis; not sure about the text. Dronebogus (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I doubt {{PD-Japan-exempt}} is applicable for the text because they're not issued under the authoritative power of the local government but are requests based on the property ownership; however, the texts are a mere listing of facts (requests and notices from the administrator), and thus not eligible for copyright protection. FYI, the character is お富ちゃん (Otomi-chan), and it's use is regulated by Tomioka city. Mzaki (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Shockwave (2016).png

Copyrighted logo Plighting Engineerd (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:The Big One Blackpool. Before & after re-tracking in 1996.png

Images appear to have been taken from POV videos, which are very likely copyrighted Plighting Engineerd (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gaming Ohne Grenzen.jpg

Wrong name InclusiveGameLab (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Couple 2025.jpg

Water marked photo Ezekiel Joviah (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Marks Maxim Spivakov Bergen Assembly 2013 image Nils-Klinger.jpg

copyright infrigment Otopon (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Beata Caterina Volpicelli.jpg

Artist Giuseppe Antonio Lomuscio born 1955, still living; no evidence of permission. Underlying lk (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Lars Gisnås norsk forfatter.jpg

Subject request IngWen22 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment. File is in use. Note also that there are two images in history. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:JLab logo white2.jpg

Duplicate of File:Logo of the Jefferson Lab.svg PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep, still COM:INUSE and no other reasons for deletion are apparent. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    No longer on the Chinese wiki, so that argument does not hold anymore. The duplicate argument still stands. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    That‘s fine. But it‘s not a duplicate and we do not delete historical logos. Why? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    "we do not delete historical logos" is false, I have requested deletion for various bitmap versions and those requests got honored. It is not an older version of a logo, it is the same version as the EPS. I have now fixed my upload to use the horizontal alignment, based on a primary source EPS. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
    No, you're wrong here too, my friend. Logos, flags, coats of arms, and maps aren't usually deleted just because they've been replaced by something else and have a different file extension. They don't take up storage space. Admins only delete these files if the version is of poor quality, which isn't the case here. Ultimately, another admin will decide and close this deletion discussion, either keeping the file or following your suggestion. Best regards, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 09:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
    "if the version is of poor quality" I would say that is the case here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Nasry-Asfura-Presidente-Honduras.jpg

Possible copyvio. No clear evidence that uploader has the rights of this image TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Per the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Decree No. 4-99-E, as amended by Decree No. 16-2006), items published by the government of Honduras may be republished after their official publication. Eustathius (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Walter De Giusti.jpg

As I'm not sure of URAA requirements in the USA and given mug shot person is dead I prefer to use a small scale fair use CoryGlee (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Schornstein Altbach2.jpg

Qualität schlecht Holger1974 (talk) 18:46, 23 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 SagoShader (talk · contribs)

Four places with a same flag? Likely hoaxes. This user has a history of uploading hoax flags. Check Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Hebei.svg

Lemonaka (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Keep - The banners look similar it they feature each state's official emblem (in each case, the national emblem of India differentiated by a text legend) displayed on a white field. Most other states in India use distinct official emblems creating more unique banners. ComminutedOrange (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@ComminutedOrange After checking their official government site, these are true flags. Lemonaka (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Kept: Flags are real. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (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 SagoShader (talk · contribs)

Fake flags, these are hoaxes

Kyrgyzstanthefan (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: Not including Juba, South Sudan. Kyrgyzstanthefan (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This flag should also be deleted as its quality is terrible. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
No Azores191 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, this is a distorted image of the flag compared to the real one. Here is the real flag of Juba: https://www.vexilla-mundi.com/south_sudan/juba_city_flag.png, the differences are immediately obvious. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I uploaded the normal version of the flag, so the file should definitely be deleted now. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SagoShader (talk · contribs)

NO SOCKPUPPETS UPLOADING FILES

Azores191 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: SVGs are being keep Azores191 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and the remaining svg files or files that have been added or not been added to the this deletion request. Azores191 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2024 NJ-12 election results.svg

This file is a duplicate of File:2022 House of Representatives Election in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District.svg. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Steinbach (b Jöhstädt) Kirche.jpg

Bild ist in der Galerie doppelt vorhanden. Aagnverglaser (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Paolla Oliveira 01.jpg

Image violates copyright. Leandro M800 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Luong Chi Dung.jpg

Source used suggests image is copyrighted. Can't see where it explicitly says this is CC-BY-SA (other than it says Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Colored Rocks 1.jpg

Morocco has no freedom of panorama, and in 1983, artist Jean Verame (who is still alive as of February 2026) got permission from the King of Morocco to go out into the Anti-Atlas Mountains with 18 tons of paint, which he (and a team of assistants) slathered all over many many boulders and small hills. It was an art project. Does that mean photos of the boulders are unacceptable on Commons? DS (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also applies to file:Colored Rocks 2.jpg, file:Colored Rocks 3.jpg, file:Colored Rocks 4.jpg,and File:Roches peints Tafraoute.JPG. On the other hand, we have stuff like File:Painted rocks near Tafraout by Jean Verame.jpg (de minimis?) and File:Tafraout456.jpg (too faded?). File:01 maroc.JPG and File:05 maroc.JPG actually feel like they might be fake — they're too vivid and garish — in which case they'd be out of scope regardless of FOP issues. DS (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
And, just to keep the various issues separate: file:02 sinai.JPG and file:08 sinai.JPG are in Egypt, which doesn't have FOP either, and Verame and his crew painted them in 1979. So, do the rocks count as art that's copyrightable? Is there a point after which the paint is so faded that copyright no longer applies? Is it relevant that there was a crew of assistants? DS (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. Too simple for copyright. Nothing but a simple coat of paint on natural landforms. IronGargoyle (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    We should probably have a more formal discussion about land art at some point. DS (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
    (Per a discussion on Discord, this is probably below Morocco's TOO, but Egypt doesn't have a well-defined TOO, so... precautionary principle for the ones situated in Egypt.) DS (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Numaralogy-Tamil.pdf

older version Sivarasu A (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Gegants_de_les_Colònies_Jordi_Turull.jpg

published in: https://www.barcelona.cat/culturapopular/ca/ambits-festius/imatgeria-festiva/gegants/gegants-de-les-colonies-jordi-turull but legal notice at Barcelona.cat: https://www.barcelona.cat/culturapopular/en/legal-notice is not supported Docosong (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:GegantóTorredelRellorge.jpg

published in: https://www.lacasadelsentremesos.cat/gegants-de-la-barceloneta but legal notice at Barcelona.cat: https://www.barcelona.cat/culturapopular/en/legal-notice is not supported Docosong (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

File:R.Arumugam.jpg

Seems like an copyvio/unauthorized picture of a possibly copyrighted photo, based off from the quality alone. Dentsinhere43 (talk) 23:26, 23 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.

File:Steinbach (b Jöhstädt) Dorfstraße.jpg

Datei ist doppelt hochgeladen Aagnverglaser (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Kept: in use. --Krd 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Steinbach (b Jöhstädt) Dorfstraße.jpg

Bild ist in der Galerie doppelt vorhanden. Aagnverglaser (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)