Commons:Deletion requests/2026/05/22

May 22

Files uploaded by Jcamachog26 (talk · contribs)

Unclear scope. Appears to promote uploader's business.

William Graham (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. These four files are the visual components of a peer-reviewed technical publication formally deposited at Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20209225, published May 15, 2026, 59 views, 34 downloads, indexed in OpenAIRE). The publication documents the immunological basis of rabies serology and RFFIT/FAVN methodology in companion animals — the same content illustrated by these diagrams.
The nominator's reason is 'unclear scope, appears to promote uploader's business.' With respect, this criterion conflates institutional affiliation with promotional intent. Every scientific diagram is created by someone affiliated with an institution. The standard for inclusion in Commons is educational value and free licensing — not the professional background of the creator.
These files meet both criteria: they are released under CC BY 4.0 and illustrate verifiable scientific concepts documented in peer-reviewed literature (McElhinney et al., 2026, Vaccine, DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2026.128369; Wallace et al., 2017). None of the four files contains prices, contact information, or any commercial element.
The creating institution, Zoovet Travel, holds verifiable persistent identifiers: ORCID 0009-0002-6837-5311 (lead researcher Jessica Ysabel Camacho García, M.V.Z., CMVP 12434). The Zenodo community hosting this work is titled 'Zoovet Travel Technical Series in International Companion Animal Transport Medicine' — a research series, not a marketing campaign.
If similar diagrams exist elsewhere, the nominator is welcome to provide links. To my knowledge, no equivalent open-access scientific diagrams on rabies serology for companion animal export exist in Commons or elsewhere.
Keep. ~2026-30767-65 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:R68 2704 at 50th Street.png

wrong file upload Dapr03 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Memorial to Louis J. Robichaud.jpg

This memorial to Canadian politician Louis J. Robichaud has four components. I'm concerned about whether Canadian law on freedom of panorama applies to the portrait of Robichaud himself. DS (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, I think COM:FOP Canada applies to the "portrait" component also, as it appears to be a 2D "work of artistic craftsmanship", which is allowed under Canada's FOP. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
How so? DS (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Are you asking why I think it is a 2D "work of artistic craftsmanship"? This is because the "portrait" component doesn't appear to be a painting or a photograph, but it appears to be an engraving on the stone. This means it has both "artistic" and "craftsmanship" elements to it, hence it should be considered as a "work of artistic craftsmanship". See COM:FOP Canada and Commons:Artistic craftsmanship for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and thank you. DS (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Makers of Fort Worth (1914).pdf

Duplicate User01938 (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Bandera de Tures, Santo Domingo de Heredia.png

Does not match prompt— generated flag looks like a grey square with a smaller flag in the middle Dronebogus (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Panathur topview.jpg

accidently enters watermark Shemeem Panathur (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Panathur town side.jpg

accidently enters watermark Shemeem Panathur (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Science Fiction Art Robot Narcissist.png

Used to illustrate “narcissism in the workplace” on arwiki, but is so obviously not representative of that I would say INUSE does not legitimately apply here as it isn’t being used educationally. Dronebogus (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep as clearly being COM:INUSE in arwiki mainspace, which the nominator acknowledges. It does not matter if it is of poor quality or otherwise appears to lack educational value. There are no INUSE exceptions listed that cover a Commons user personally thinking that it's a bad use of the image. Belbury (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Advert for Arise Woman!2019.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Omphalographer as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10. Converting to DR because the image has OTRS permission. Sreejith K (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete. This is pretty clearly a promotional image; additionally, I don't think the uploader can grant permission for the Fuze Tea logo in the lower left. Omphalographer (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Jadephoenix1999 (talk · contribs)

Out of scope: AI-generated map and photo. Do not use AI tools to generate maps; use a real map (and a real photo).

Omphalographer (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Also nominating:
which are recolored versions of the same images. Omphalographer (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)


Just out of curiousity, how was AI generation of these files determined? --Enyavar (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Eiga-Hyoron-1967-April-1.png

The cover illustration is a work of 小林泰彦 (KOBAYASHI Yasuhiko, 1935-) as indicated at the bottom-left corner. cf. COM:BOOK Mzaki (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Britten 1970s.jpg

This appears to be a malformed version of a copyrighted image of Britten. The original can be seen through this link with copyright information: Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Someone with access to newspaers.com will have to see if there was a copyright notice in the masthead or publisher's block of the Austin American-Statesman on that date. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:AndrewWave.jpg

no exif, upload by new user, unlikely to be own work. PCP Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear Gbawden, this photo was taken by me personally.
I am the original author and uploader of this image.
I already uploaded the original file. The original image was compressed before upload, which removed EXIF metadata. FamilyWarrior (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Wappen Eisenbrechtshofen.png

Duplikat von Kleines Staatswappen von Bayern; nicht das aktuelle oder historische Gemeindewappen von Eisenbrechtshofen Sukaq (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep: Die archivierte Website sieht das anders. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
    aha, ist aber Unsinn, was die archivierte Website da sagt. Sukaq (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
    im übrigen wäre natürlich zu diskutieren, was die (archivierte) Website genau sagt. Steht dort ein (sinngemäß) Text: Die ehemalige Gemeinde Eisenbrechtshofen führte als Wappen: Ein in Silber und Blau schräg rechts gerauteten Schild, auf dem die Volkskrone ruht.? Oder ist auf der Website ohne weiteren Kommentar eine Grafik mit einem ggf. irreführenden, ggf. falschen Namen gezeigt? Was ja nicht viel aussagt.
    Nochmal: das IST das Kleine Wappen von Bayern, , sonst nix. Sukaq (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
    Worin liegt bitte der Unsinn? Das ist ein Webarchiv von 2016 und stellt ein Teil der offziellen Website der Gemeinde dar. Bisher sehe ich wirklich keine Löschgründe von dir vorgebracht, zudem COM:INUSE, wenn auch bloss auf Wikidata. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    Im Übrigen verwendet auch die aktuelle Website dieses Wappen immer noch. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Das Bayerische Hauptstaatsarchiv in München liess mir in dieser Angelegenheit mit Datum vom 14. Juli 2026 folgende Mitteilung zukommen:
jede bayerische Gemeinde war und ist berechtigt, das kleine bayerische Staatswappen zu führen, wenn sie kein eigenes Wappen hat, z. B. zum Gebrauch in ihrem Dienstsiegel. Rechtsgrundlage ist die Bayerische Gemeindeordnung, Art. 4 (vgl. https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayGO-4?hl=true , frühere Fassungen entsprechend). Da inzwischen fast alle bayerischen Gemeinden eigene Wappen haben, greift die Regelung kaum noch.
Ein einmal verliehenes Gemeindewappen verliert seine amtliche Gültigkeit, sobald eine Gemeinde ihre Selbständigkeit verliert. Über die Verwendung der früheren Wappen der Gemeindeteile entscheidet als Rechtsnachfolgerin und Inhaberin übertragener Urheberrechte etc. üblicherweise die neue Gemeinde. Die neue Gemeinde ist aber nicht Rechteinhaberin am kleinen bayerischen Staatswappen.
Das frühere eigene Wappen einer ehemaligen Gemeinde ist natürlich weiterhin von historischer Bedeutung; wenn aber kein eigenes Wappen vorhanden war, gibt es diesbezüglich auch nichts, was historisch bewahrt werden müsste. Wenn ein Ort keine selbständige Gemeinde mehr ist, greift Art. 4 der Bayerischen Gemeindeordnung nicht mehr.
Das kleine bayerische Staatswappen (mit Volkskrone) ist als staatliches Hoheitszeichen Gemeinden sowie staatlichen Behörden und Stellen vor allem der unteren Verwaltungsebene vorbehalten (vgl. https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayAVWpG-2 ). Das sogenannte „Landessymbol Freistaat Bayern“ (ohne Volkskrone) darf jeder verwenden, sofern dadurch kein amtlicher Eindruck erweckt wird (https://www.stmi.bayern.de/staat-und-verfassung/staatssymbole/ , gesetzliche Grundlage: https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayVwV96463 ); es hat keinerlei speziellen Bezug zu Gemeinden.
- 2 -
Qualifizierte Rechtsauskünfte können wir allerdings nicht erteilen. Für Ausnahmegenehmigungen zur nichtamtlichen Verwendung des Bayerischen Staatswappens ist die Regierung von Oberfranken (https://www.regierung.oberfranken.bayern.de/aufgaben/192162/192163/leistung/leistung_12186/index.html ) zuständig; dort könnte man wohl auch in Zweifelsfällen anfragen.
Bei Betrachtung der entsprechenden Internetseite der Gemeinde Biberbach ( https://biberbach.de/ortsteile/?query=Wappen ) fiel auf, dass der Gemeindeteil Affaltern auch nicht mit einem Wappen bebildert ist, obwohl Affaltern nach unseren Unterlagen ein eigenes Wappen hatte.
Dass die vormalige Gemeinde Eisenbrechtshofen als Gemeinde das Recht hatte, das kleine bayerische Staatswappen zu führen, steht nach diesem Schreiben ausser Frage. Das kleine bayerische Staatswappen mit Wappen Eisenbrechtshofen.png zu betiteln scheint mir aber auf jeden Fall irreführend. Statt der Löschung dieser Datei wäre wohl eher eine Umbenennung angebracht. 15:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

File:2025 Nowy Waliszów 29.jpg

Identifiable person in a private place, consent not given Peulle (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The image was nominated for QI and a discussion started. I noticed that the Commons official guidelines state that: "Publishing a photo of an identifiable person in a private place usually requires consent, and Commons expects this even if relevant laws do not require it." The woman in the picture appears to not want to be photographed (additionally, there is a child in the picture, increasing the gravity of the situation), and the photographer has not indicated that consent has been given. The woman looks like she is very much annoyed at the presence of a drone taking photos of her private property. It should therefore not be on Commons. --Peulle (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
The building and the entire property belong to the Bystrzyca Kłodzka commune, it is not private property. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Le Président Mao Tse Toung sur la guerre populaire-portrait de Mao (cropped).jpg

Copyright status of the underlying Mao portrait is unclear. Cropped version largely reproduces the original portrait artwork rather than the uploaded photograph itself. ~2026-30473-86 (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Mao et Alexis, Pékin 1960 © Fonds privé familial.jpg

Dubious "own work" claim. Historical 1960 photograph with unclear authorship and insufficient evidence of public domain status in both China and the United States. ~2026-30473-86 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:20240716 201602 Bugs Bunny graffiti, Eisenberga street, Kraków, Poland.jpg

The streetart probably not authorized by copyright holder. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:View from Rijntoren 2.jpg

Nearly identical to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_from_Rijntoren_4.jpg Tomas Guus (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Joseph Estrada official presidential portrait.jpg

IMBD? why hasn't this been deleted yet? Delete, due to literally being from IMBD and has no source that indicates this is Public Domain via by government. Wilson Palacpac III (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Truchetet Guillaume

supprimer TG 12:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truchetet Guillaume (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:FlagoftheChechenPrincipality.png

This file is not own work. It is taken from this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/yvli9i/flag_of_the_chechens_national_movements_army_from/. This flag itself is also fictional, but labeled as a legit historical flag by the uploader, despite that the original Reddit post stated that it was for a fictional project. In conclusion, this file must be deleted for copyright violation and factual misinformation. Liptink0 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio,  Delete. If it can be shown to be free from copyright, then notability (for an educative use within scope) must still be shown, which is another hurdle. --Enyavar (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (25).JPG

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Although we don't have a law against sharing photographs of toys in the UK (because we don't have massively punitive fines (as in the US) for such things in our courts, so it's not financially advantageous for either side) – I know you will just keep repeating yourselves and ignoring me, which I find distressing because you've done it before with scarecrows, so just delete it and leave me in peace. It's sad to have to say this. No British toy manufacturer would lose out due to the use of this picture; in fact they would gain from the publicity, and the local charity which ran the scarecrow festival would lose out if the photo were deleted because it is/was publicity for their work. But that's how it is on WP.
Just delete it and leave me in peace about this picture. I am sick and tired of aggressive US legal greed. I don't even know how your country's big-ass lawyers would make any money out of suing WP over this picture, because this is a British-manufactured toy, and British manufacturers would not bother to pay expensive US lawyers for wasting their time, and the aggressive US legal system is about money, not morality, so it would back off if there was no big money it. Or are you not really interested in protecting WP? Are you just in this to keep up your personal deletion rate? Storye book (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
: I should add that there is no Disney copyright infringement in this image. The toy manufacturer has been careful to avoid copying Disney details. If you care to look at the original film (see parts of it here) you will see that in the above scarecrow image the shape is different, the eyes are different, eyebrows are missing, the mouth is different, the spots are arranged differently. The collars don't count because the scarecrow creator has added separate ribbon which is not part of the inflatable toy. Any self-respecting Disney representative would want nothing to do with this very different (and less characterful) design. Storye book (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (24).JPG

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Although we don't have a law against sharing photographs of toys in the UK (because we don't have massively punitive fines (as in the US) for such things in our courts, so it's not financially advantageous for either side) – I know you will just keep repeating yourselves and ignoring me, which I find distressing because you've done it before with scarecrows, so just delete it and leave me in peace. It's sad to have to say this. No British toy manufacturer would lose out due to the use of this picture; in fact they would gain from the publicity, and the local charity which ran the scarecrow festival would lose out if the photo were deleted because it is/was publicity for their work. But that's how it is on WP.
Just delete it and leave me in peace about this picture. I am sick and tired of aggressive US legal greed. I don't even know how your country's big-ass lawyers would make any money out of suing WP over this picture, because this is a British-manufactured toy, and British manufacturers would not bother to pay expensive US lawyers for wasting their time, and the aggressive US legal system is about money, not morality, so it would back off if there was no big money in it. Or are you not really interested in protecting WP? Are you just in this to keep up your personal deletion rate? Storye book (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
I should add that there is no Disney copyright infringement in this image. The toy manufacturer has been careful to avoid copying Disney details. If you care to look at the original film (see parts of it here) you will see that in the above scarecrow image the shape is different, the eyes are different, eyebrows are missing, the mouth is different, the spots are arranged differently. The collars don't count because the scarecrow creator has added separate ribbon which is not part of the inflatable toy. Any self-respecting Disney representative would want nothing to do with this very different (and less characterful) design. Storye book (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

File:PrincipalityofChechnya18thcentury.jpg

This file is a copyright violation and contains deliberate misinformation about its historical period. This file is not the own work of the uploader, it is a direct scan from: Атлас истории средних веков (Atlas of Medieval History), published by the Main Administration of Geodesy and Cartography under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, 1951, Map No. 70 "Europe in the middle of the 17th century," page 55. Under Russian and international law, the copyright for this 1951 work has not yet expired. Liptink0 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you raise two issues.
  • The first is about copyright, and a Copyright from the Soviet Union in 1951 will likely expire rather soon. I don't know when exactly, but I would expect the content to be freely licensable within the next two decades. That means, this file could get undeleted as soon as that occurs (because of the low quality, I would advocate to not undelete it, but rather upload a high-res scan of the original).
  • The second issue you do not fully expound here, is that of misinformation. Please elaborate on that: Has the content of the map been altered when compared to the original? Or is it historical propaganda misinformation? The latter is within Common's scope; the former is not. --Enyavar (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Eva Thulin and Rosalba Neri in a screenshot from the film Top Sensation (1968).jpg

Shot from 1968 film, definitely isn't "own work". Very little chance of {{PD-US-no-notice}}, but no evidence for this. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Isabel Sarli en Los días calientes.jpg

No evidence for PD in the United States, because of Commons:Subsisting copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:GumbetChechenSultanate.jpg

This file is a duplicate and a copyright violation. The uploader has falsely claimed "Own Work," but the map was originally created and published by AoifeIves & Khotab. The original file already exists on Commons: File:Map of the Gumbet-Chechen Sultanate in the 18th Century.png. This new upload is an unauthorized copy with fraudulent licensing (Pretargeted False Licensing). It should be deleted per COM:CSD#G8 (Duplicate) or COM:CSD#G12 (Copyright violation). Liptink0 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

i actually messaged the owner of this on discord and got her rights Moltenn9 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
You would need to provide proof that this was so, and more specificity for what rights were transferred. The issue of this being a duplicate also still stands. Theriocephalus (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicate of an older image, falsely-claimed authorial credit. Seems straightforward. Theriocephalus (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom --Enyavar (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Simsir Map.jpg

This file is a copyright violation and a fictional map. The uploader falsely claimed own work but in reality, this image is a low-quality, cropped screenshot directly taken from a fictional historical edit published on social media. The distinctive visual style including the heavy vignette effect, specific digital shading, and low resolution, is characteristic of these social media video edits. Furthermore, the map depicts a highly ahistorical and fictionalized territory labeled as Simsir that has zero academic or historical backing. In conclusion, this file must be deleted for these reasons. Liptink0 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Europe-Simsir.png

This file is a completely fictional map and a clear case of misinformation that lacks any academic or historical backing. The user uploaded this map to represent the medieval region or kingdom of Simsim, but the borders shown are heavily exaggerated and ahistorical. According to the verifiable historical text on the Wikipedia article for Simsim, this entity was a small local principality predominantly localized roughly in eastern Chechnya (Ichkeria), with some connections to the Kumyk Plain and Ingushetia. However this map falsely depicts Simsim as a massive country covering almost the entire Northeast Caucasus. Since there is absolutely no historical source or text justifying these borders, the map constitutes a severe project scope violation and spreads misinformation. It should be deleted for lack of verifiability. Liptink0 (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Enyavar (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Europe-Simsim.png

This file is a completely fictional map and a clear case of misinformation that lacks any academic or historical backing. The user uploaded this map to represent the medieval region or kingdom of Simsim, but the borders shown are heavily exaggerated and ahistorical. According to the verifiable historical text on the Wikipedia article for Simsim, this entity was a small local principality predominantly localized roughly in eastern Chechnya (Ichkeria), with some connections to the Kumyk Plain and Ingushetia. However this map falsely depicts Simsim as a massive country covering almost the entire Northeast Caucasus. Since there is absolutely no historical source or text justifying these borders, the map constitutes a severe project scope violation and spreads misinformation. It should be deleted for lack of verifiability. Liptink0 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:MapoftheChechenPrincipality.png

This map is a fabrication and contradicts Wikipedia's 'Principality of Okotskaya' article, which this map claims to represent. The page notes that Okotskaya was a small local entity made up of Aukh teips and localized in a limited area of eastern Chechnya and northern Dagestan. However this map falsely colors a massive territory expanding deep into northern and western Dagestan and covering the entire Caspian coastline of the region. The uploader provides zero sources to justify these borders, making the map completely unreliable and speculative. This map spreads misinformation and must be deleted. Liptink0 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Enyavar (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:PLUMERAM.jpg

Promotional, previously tagged for CSD Ternera (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Ninth Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa.jpg

the website what marked in source section has no mentions what this image is PD SomeFancyUsername (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: I've been unable to locate the website in question. The earliest source online I could find of this photo is from the subject's obituary. TansoShoshen (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Foto Alvin Arifin.jpg

This is my photo and I want to delete this photo Alvinarifin91 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I found on indonesian wikipedia article of person with same name there. Also the article claims what Alwin Arifin is a politican and person on this image also looks like a politican. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
He is alwin not alvin. Different person. ~2026-32432-90 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Foto Alvin Arifin.jpg

the user is deactive anf this is my photo Alvinarifin91 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:TerekCossackmemorial.jpg

This file is a clear copyright violation and a fraudulent own work claim. The uploader claims original authorship, but this image is a copyrighted press photograph originally published in January 2019 by the North Caucasus Service of RFE/RL (Kavkaz.Realii). It was featured in their reporting here: https://www.kavkazr.com/a/29730200.html. The file must be deleted copyright infringement. Liptink0 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:ChechenPrincedomatitspeak.png

This map is a fabrication and contradicts Wikipedia's 'Principality of Okotskaya' article, which this map claims to represent. The page notes that Okotskaya was a small local entity made up of Aukh teips and localized in a limited area of eastern Chechnya and northern Dagestan. However this map falsely colors a massive territory expanding deep into northern and western Dagestan and covering the entire Caspian coastline of the region. The uploader provides zero sources to justify these borders, making the map completely unreliable and speculative. This map spreads misinformation and must be deleted. Liptink0 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Enyavar (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:PrincipalityofChechnya.png

This map is a fabrication and contradicts Wikipedia's 'Principality of Okotskaya' article, which this map claims to represent. The page notes that Okotskaya was a small local entity made up of Aukh teips and localized in a limited area of eastern Chechnya and northern Dagestan. However this map falsely colors a massive territory expanding deep into northern and western Dagestan and covering the entire Caspian coastline of the region. The uploader provides zero sources to justify these borders, making the map completely unreliable and speculative. This map spreads misinformation and must be deleted. Liptink0 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. --Enyavar (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Simsim14thcentury.png

This file is a completely fictional map and a clear case of misinformation that lacks any academic or historical backing. The user uploaded this map to represent the medieval region or kingdom of Simsim, but the borders shown are heavily exaggerated and ahistorical. According to the verifiable historical text on the Wikipedia article for Simsim, this entity was a small local principality predominantly localized roughly in eastern Chechnya (Ichkeria), with some connections to the Kumyk Plain and Ingushetia. However this map falsely depicts Simsim as a massive country covering almost the entire Northeast Caucasus. Since there is absolutely no historical source or text justifying these borders, the map constitutes a severe project scope violation and spreads misinformation. It should be deleted for lack of verifiability. Liptink0 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Simsimatitspeak.png

This file is a completely fictional map and a clear case of misinformation that lacks any academic or historical backing. The user uploaded this map to represent the medieval region or kingdom of Simsim, but the borders shown are heavily exaggerated and ahistorical. According to the verifiable historical text on the Wikipedia article for Simsim, this entity was a small local principality predominantly localized roughly in eastern Chechnya (Ichkeria), with some connections to the Kumyk Plain and Ingushetia. However this map falsely depicts Simsim as a massive country covering almost the entire Eastern Caucasus. Since there is absolutely no historical source or text justifying these borders, the map constitutes a severe project scope violation and spreads misinformation. It should be deleted for lack of verifiability. Liptink0 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 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 WikiR26 (talk · contribs)

These are AI-upscaled historical portraits of footballers. Per the more recent Commons:AI images of identifiable people guideline, such images now require the original, unaltered image to be uploaded alongside it, or linked to offsite. No such upload or link is provided for these.

Some of the images are in use, although their AI-modified nature (which goes against image policies on some projects, such as en:WP:AIUPSCALED) was not noted in the file description pages until today.

Belbury (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete unless a reliable source is found and/or overwritten with original image as needed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Per guideline. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)


Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by WikiR26 (talk · contribs)

NOTHING can be trusted. Does File:CyroAranha.jpg look okay? Nope!

Some have a source, like which I've already overwritten. All need to be checked.

I think a few can be found at https://vasco.com.br/conteudo/idolos-e-figuras-historicas/.

  • File:VavaBelliniOrlandoVasco.jpg overwritten
  • File:AlexandreCampello.jpg oops, this was just a crop of
  • File:SegundoVilladoniga.jpg overwritten
  • File:SebastianBerascochea.jpg overwritten
  • File:CyroAranha.jpg too bad I didn't save as that site is dead now and not archived. Maybe it'll come back up? Removed usage from w:pt:Cyro_Aranha.
  • File:Ipojucan.jpg overwritten
  • File:PingaVasco.jpg overwritten
  • File:Ordem do Corvo.jpg overwritten
  • File:Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos.jpg overwritten

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

1st three seem OK. Not 5th tho. Wait, no, they're sourced, but then AI-enhanced. Just not as extreme. Bad. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)


Does {{AI upscaled}} need an add'l parameter to indicate the original, unaltered image was uploaded sorta - alongside / is in the history? For use on these? Maybe we should alter Commons:AI_images_of_identifiable_people#Altered_images so what's been done is considered OK, or actually do as told there?

Some need further editing of some kind...

-RememberOrwell (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  • RememberOrwell, I must have misclicked or forgotten to "keep" VavaBellini.
    File:SegundoVilladoniga.jpg turned out not to be AI, but didn't have a source when I nominated it either. The default for this uploader when there's no source is "do not trust".
    "Some need further editing of some kind... " Please elaborate. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Susana Giménez 1972.jpg

No evidence for PD in the United States, because of Commons:Subsisting copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Susana Giménez.png

No evidence for PD in the United States, because of Commons:Subsisting copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Nélida Roca y Susana Giménez.jpg

No evidence for PD in the United States, because of Commons:Subsisting copyright. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:陶寺遗址博物馆主立面图.jpg

拍摄后并没有保存到本地，上传到了本人公众号，保存后并没有去除水印 AMtirster (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Syntagma metro station art.jpg

Way too recent as a work of art in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 17:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Brasileirão Feminino A1 2025 SemNaming-04.png

Não foi encontrada a permissão Cttawww (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Chrysis conica.jpg

Unclear license. Inaturalist source is CC-BY-NC, which would make it not eligible to be on Commons. Flickr source is with a license valid for Commons. TansoShoshen (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Being both his official accounts, both licenses work, so we can use the most permisive one (kind of multi-licensing). It should not be deleted. PFSV-UY (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Here we confirm that the account of Flickr and the account of iNaturalist are managed by the same person (or it has the approval), so both are 100% official sources. Given this, it is not longer a unclear license case but rather a multi-license one, in which we can use the license that works for us. PFSV-UY (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Given the verified CC-BY on Flickr, there is no need to delete this file. It is permitted to publish the same image in different locations with different licenses. We may use whichever source (and corresponding license) we choose. Loopy30 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Passport photographs of Tupac Shakur

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ross Ulbricht passport photo.jpg

Howardcorn33 (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep No copyright per this discussion Bremps... 11:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
We appear to be referencing two contradictory discussions then. The only relevant guideline I can find is at Category:United States passport photos, which reads:

Passport photos, while taken by a third party, are taken to government specifications and may not meet the "threshold of originality" that would allow a copyright in the name of the person operating the shutter or the company providing the service. Or they may. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janisjoplin.png was deleted even though it was a US passport photo. In 2019, Kinga Kijak-Markiewicz wrote: "passport photos are not subject to copyright.". However in 2020, this sentence was removed.

This is inconclusive. Perhaps we need to initiate a broader discussion on US passport photos. Howardcorn33 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have found a relevant passage from a law journal which suggests that US passport photos are free of copyright:

With all these photographs — photographs of museum paintings, images captured at ATMs and by immigration officials stamping your passport, Google Maps Street View, aerial reconnaissance photographs — there is no originality to give rise to copyright. These images may have copyright in the few countries that still base copyright protection on "sweat of the brow," but not in the United States or most countries in the European Union."

— in: (in English) Hughes, Justin (2012). "The Photographer’s Copyright – Photograph as Art, Photograph as Database". Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 25 (347).
Does this definitively say if passport photos are free of copyright in the US? --Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Google Maps Street View too? This could be huge. Bremps... 15:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
We have a PD image of literally every city now. If the Google Maps thing pans out. Bremps... 03:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Should this finding be brought to a more public venue for discussion and scrutiny? Howardcorn33 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Hell yeah. Bremps... 03:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I've created a separate discussion here. Anyway, I think we need further input on the Tupac images, maybe delete it if we're not sure per the precautionary principle. Howardcorn33 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33 There was some past discussion here. I started a new Village Pump post here. Bremps... 03:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Every United States city. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
keep, public domain as passport photos are. no evidence to the contrary. Kingofthedead (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Passports are public domain. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 15:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Bedivere (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Passport photographs of Tupac Shakur

Per change in community consensus: COM:Deletion requests/File:Sam Denby SYA Passport Picture.jpg

TansoShoshen (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding the following files for the same rationale above:
TansoShoshen (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Adding File:Matthew Sturniolo passport photo.jpg for the same rationale. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
Adding
For the same rationale. TansoShoshen (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete It is a crappy photo with minimal skill, but that does not mean the photo has no copyright. In the US, passport photos are not taken by government employees. Instead, the applicant must furnish the photo. I can go to a local pharmacy and get such a photo for a few dollars. The copyright belongs to the store; they sell me the copies I submit to the passport office. We need proof that the passport photo has a free license. Glrx (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
    "that does not mean the photo has no copyright" yes it does, every jurisdiction has a threshold of originality (COM:TOO). the standards set by the State Dept for passport pictures make it impossible for you to have any originality in you taking the picture, making it uncopyrightable. NAADAAN (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete: as above – Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
    @TansoShoshen: can you add File:Daniel Pearl Passport.JPG to the deletion nomination aswell? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 21:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Howardcorn33 Shouldn't that fall under Public Domain as the copyright is very unlikely to have been renewed? TansoShoshen (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    @TansoShoshen: as far as I can tell, under the US definition of "publication" in 1986, it would have required to have been available for distribution to the general public. Since passport documents contain highly sensitive and private information, I find it highly unlikely his passport was made accessible to anyone other than Pearl himself prior to 1989. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 09:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    For 1978—1989, the situation is more difficult. The photographer selling the passport photo to Pearl would have been publication. Is that photo copyrighted or public domain? If Mr. Photographer stamped "© Mr. Photographer 1986" on the back or somewhere else, the photograph would be copyrighted. If Mr. Photographer registered the photograph within 5 years (unlikely), it would be copyrighted. Otherwise, the photograph would be public domain. Glrx (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
    In that case COM:PCP would apply as we do not have evidence regarding the actual original publication of the photo. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
    I think in all honesty, we'd need to have a separate discussion regarding that specific file. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
    Probably de minimis for File:Daniel Pearl Passport.JPG Qzekrom (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • : Keep keep, passport photos are public domain and what is the evidence to the contrary. UWMKEgypt (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    Before December 12, 2025 the federal government did not take passport/visa photos. There were some revisions made where they are now required to take the visa photos effective 12/12/2025 https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/uscis-says-it-will-no-longer-accept-self-submitted-photos-and-limits-reuse. Before this, they were under copyright because they are not the photographer. Minermatt122514 (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    That's still only for immigration benefit requests, not passports. Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete The federal government does not take passport/visa photos (before 12/12/2025)! You provide them with a photo on your application and they use that. So these are definitely under copyright with the copyright holder being the photographer. Since there is no way to identify the photographer this makes it an orphaned work. Orphaned works are a legal gray area that we shouldn't mess with. Minermatt122514 (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    They actually do take the photos for visas now.
    https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/uscis-says-it-will-no-longer-accept-self-submitted-photos-and-limits-reuse
    However, this is a very recent change.
    This was definitely not the case in 1995. Minermatt122514 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Minermatt122514: This is for USCIS "immigration benefit requests", not passports. Totally different agency (USCIS is part of Homeland Security, not State).
    @Prosfilaes: FYI, this is the link where the December 12 date came from. Qzekrom (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
     Keep I'm changing my vote after I read the arguments that Paul Szynol made in that paper which was pointed out by Qzekrom and NAADAAN. Minermatt122514 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Just to note that File:Matthew Sturniolo passport photo.jpg is covered by this discussion . Bremps... 15:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
Added to DR, interesting thing to note is that, like with the Sam Denby portrait, this is a separate and individual colour photo. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Szynol (2025) - almost all copyrightable aspects of passport photos are constrained (choice/positioning of subject, timing, and rendition) or chosen by the subject (in the case of clothing or jewelry). Even micro-variations in the subject's pose or facial expression would be imperceptible in the final image because the background is edited out so that only the person's face remains. I think this is a case of m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Qzekrom (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, I know that "the copyright owner won't care" is not a valid reason to keep a file assuming it is copyrightable, but courts and the Copyright Office have considered public policy rationales for whether something should be subject to copyright. For example, typefaces and document layout are not copyrightable in part because the social benefits of their being in the public domain far outweigh the benefits of copyright protection. Passport photos are almost always anonymous or orphan works, and the author is unlikely to enforce the copyright in them (in fact, they likely already grant the customer an implied license to copy them). So if it's ambiguous, a court might use this argument as a tiebreaker in favor of the public domain. Qzekrom (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Qzekrom, regardless of if these were taken by the State Dept, a Walgreens' employee, or a photo booth. These types of pictures (I would argue and I have argued that DMV pictures are part of this as well) cannot be copyrightable since standards set by the State Department and AAMVA make it impossible for any of these pictures to reasonably have any original or creative expression.
Of course this will be a "grey area" until someone attempts to petition the Copyright Office or a court, but looking at jurisprudence in other countries and legal commentaries I have yet to find anyone making the argument that ID/passport photos could be copyrighted.
The consensus shouldn't be about whether or not the government took the photograph, but whether or not it's original enough to warrant copyright protection. NAADAAN (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per COM:PCP. Nothing about submitting a personally taken (or work for hire) photograph to the US State Department places it in the public domain. The previous discussion didn't cite any policy or legal guidelines that make that case either beyond "may not meet", which isn't enough to clear COM:PCP, and were mostly based on a misreading of an opinion on images taken by immigration officers (which, at least in the US, passport photos are not). While there are guidelines on composition provided by the government, these guidelines are not so strict that they remove all opportunities for creative expression. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
"While there are guidelines on composition provided by the government, these guidelines are not so strict that they remove all opportunities for creative expression". I would like to understand the rationale behind that, per the State Dept there are guidelines concerning lighting, tilting of the head and pose, facial expression, the ratio of the head & shoulders in relation to the background, etc... I don't see how one could in good faith believe that it could allow for individual creative control over such pictures. NAADAAN (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Leduc No 1 oil well (43081219755).jpg

derivative work Mindmatrix 18:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Leduc No 1 oil well (30118291748).jpg

derivative work Mindmatrix 18:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Zora Janković (03).jpg

Violation of personal rights — when the depicted individuals have not given their consent Zorajankovic (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Zora Janković (05).jpg

Violation of personal rights — when the depicted individuals have not given their consent Zorajankovic (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Zora Janković (04).jpg

Violation of personal rights — when the depicted individuals have not given their consent Zorajankovic (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Zora Janković (01).jpg

Violation of personal rights — when the depicted individuals have not given their consent Zorajankovic (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:NGC 6684 DSS.jpg

Link the link on the page (http://archive.stsci.edu/data_use.html) says, DSS is copyright Lithopsian (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)


 Delete per nomination. C messier (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Doha, nocturno 2.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Qatar. Rockfang (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Human faces cloaked by censor bars in the Epstein files

While the photographs might be PD-USGov that does not apply to the photographs and paintings depicted in the files (unless the federal government painted those as well)

It's possible DE-MINIS might apply but that's something we have to consider for each individual file

Trade (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep these as I think the framed photographs/paintings are de minimis in the images:
 Delete the rest as they mostly focused on the photographs/paintings, hence are COM:DW of those works with unknown copyright status. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
 Keep for now: "DE-MINIS might apply but that's something we have to consider for each individual file"—this requires images to be nominated individually, or in small, related, batches. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)


Kept: please renominate problematic files individually or in smaller batches. anyway, most are de mínimis uses. --Bedivere (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Human faces cloaked by censor bars in the Epstein files

Derivative works

Trade (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep per previous DR, please renominate problematic files individually or in smaller batches. anyway, most are de mínimis uses. JaydenChao (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
"or in smaller batches" Which I just did Trade (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nom and COM:DW. Although most of these image are obscured by the black bars, the obscured images are still COM:DW of the original copyrighted photographs/artworks. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Via Araucária.jpg

Duplicação de imagem com maior qualidade c:File:Logo Via Araucária II.jpg Falcão Alado (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Fausto Isidro Meza-Flores

No indication what the source of the photograph is

Trade (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File:MacCarthy Reagh of Drinagh Crest.png

Heavily suspected AI-generated image Futurecrops (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)