Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/09

March 9

File:K-weapon source - K808 - 1.webm

There is no proof that these files are released under KOGL Type 1. The video descriptions do not state which type of KOGL is applied. (There should be a clear statement like this one.)

The MND channel description states that their videos are released under KOGL Type 4 (by-nc-nd). "* 본 채널에 게시된 모든 저작물은 '공공누리 제4유형: 출처표시+상업적 이용금지+변경금지' 조건에 따라 이용 가능합니다. 다만, 영상에 포함된 인물의 초상권은 별도로 보호되며, 무단 이용을 금합니다." (click "...more", and you should change the default language of YouTube to Korean)--Namoroka (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree to delete most of the videos because they don't clearly specify what type of KOGL license they were distributed under.
But they should be excluded from the candidates as they also feature an emblem meaning KOGL Type 1 at the beginning of the video. and when I was uploading these videos to Wikimedia Commons, the description of the YouTube channel did not specify a separate license condition. Gasiseda (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
That's my mistake.--Namoroka (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tim Sheehy while serving in the U.S. Navy.jpg

These photos are from his campaign account and were taken before Sheehy was a US senator therefore not in public domain as US government work and definitely were not taken by a government official Putitonamap98 (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The license is wrong, it's not Congress but the Navy. Someone in the Navy had to have taken this, making it PD Navy. BlueRockThrush (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:202401钱江路站上行月台.jpg

Being replaced by File:Platforms 2 & 4 of Qianjiang Road Station, 202602.jpg because of its poor quality. Benteds (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:MinimaxLogo2013.png

Exceeds COM:TOO. Gikü (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Граффити в Ялте, 4 июня 2013 года.jpg

No FoP for 2D works in Crimea A1Cafel (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Uploader here. I do not object to deletion. FingerWiki (talk) 23:00, 9 March 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:Erección.jpg

Random penis photo, nothing special, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


 Delete bad Dronebogus (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Erección.jpg

Es innecesariamente gráfica y explícita BLKR300 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lazereon (talk · contribs)

Photos from 1933 claimed as PD under "author's life plus 70 years or fewer", but the author is not known; very likely they lived beyond 1955.

Belbury (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep Now fixed. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} --RAN (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    To be clearer, when I say "author is not known", I just mean that the uploader has described the photos as having either "Unknown author" or that the author was somehow "José Antonio Primo de Rivera", the subject of the photos. I haven't attempted to find out whether the photographer is on record somewhere, for any of them. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Komisioni-Qendror-i-Zgjedhjeve-new.svg

This will need to be updated to this file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Komisioni_Qendror_i_Zgjedhjeve.svg) as it is just a new version of the same base, and many pages are using it already. Siar O (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes this would be ideal. I opened an edit request months ago on the original file to update it, but it was never looked at. Alhydrogen (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll see what I can pull off. Siar O (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Nuwordlife0rder (talk · contribs)

COM:DW. No FoP

– Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) 14:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Imus Cathedral Logo.png

Uploader claims to represent the Imus Cathedral (per username), the copyright owner of this logo. However, there is no proof of this identity (per Commons:Username policy), nor evidence that the cathedral administration released the file under a CC license. – Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) 14:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MaherMahoory (talk · contribs)

Probable copyvios, given the uploader's track record.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Tiny Jesus on Hillsborough Street.jpg

This image mainly depicts a figurine. The figurine's copyright is owned by its creator as it has a unique design and not the creator of this image; see COM:TOYS. I'm still undecided on File:Jeep Ducking.jpg, which the nominator cited as being ok, but the main focus on this image is the figurine and it cannot be plausibly de minimis. (also, no FOP in the US outside of buildings/simple structures) HurricaneZetaC 15:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Delete As per nominator. COM:TOYS is pretty clear that in the US there is copyright protection for figurines such as this. Given that Barbie and similar human-modelled figures have been deleted in the past, I don't think the representation of a human figure in itself would be under the TOO.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right about COM:TOYS, even if the toy is made by several low-to-no recognition companies (unlike Barbie), I suppose it was still was made by a person at some point Indeed, toys generally are original (owe their origin to an author), have authors (human creators). I know this is Commons, but since we're both here from the DYK nom, would it be possible to move the image to Wikipedia in low-res to still be used under fair use at the top of the article? @HurricaneZeta and Crisco 1492: Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    There isn't a way to directly import it AFAIK but you can just reupload it there manually. HurricaneZetaC 17:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete (as uploader) file now exists locally, and will be deduced via bot to free size soon (w:File:Tiny Jesus On Hillsborough Street.jpg) Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Łukasz Pilip podczas Festiwalu Literacki Świdwin.jpg

powielenie Poplop71 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

2D works in former residence of Liu Shaoqi

No FoP for 2D works in China. The textual and graphical content presented on information noticeboards in a museum/former residences of famous figures is not in the public domain and is protected by copyright law. See also: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Noticeboards and signs: "As a rule of thumb, detailed informational and educational noticeboards/signs, such as the ones that are often found at historical or tourist sites, are almost always copyright-protected and photographs of them cannot usually be accepted. Noticeboards may include graphic images or extended textual matter, or both, and copyright is likely to subsist in both. 2D-artwork is included in the FoP copyright-exception in most FoP-countries, but not in: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Canada, China." --Huangdan2060 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:A Man on the Moon (50137177276).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted book A1Cafel (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The picture is probably PD, the rest is PD-ineligible. Notable book. Yann (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Banknotes of Kuwait

According to Commons:CRT/Kuwait there is no exception for currency.

Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:49, 9 March 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:Casinò di Campione

There is no FoP in Italy as is clearly stated at the category. Only photographs taken from Switzerland are allowed. The ones nominated are all close ups of parts and details of the building.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  •  Keep All these photos have been uploaded within the WLM initiative following an authorization by the Municipality of Campione d'Italia (see here). I don't see why we shouldn't consider the authorization valid. See also previous discussions here and here. Moreover, at least File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 10.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 11.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 2.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 6.jpg, File:Dettagli del casinò di Campione d'Italia 9.jpg seem under the high italian ToO to me, for being too simple or for being merely functional parts of the building without an artistic character.--Friniate (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Do you believe the authorization also counts for photographs uploaded on other months than September/during the WLM initiative? The key criteria to participate in the contest is that they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in September(2018). None of the files is from 2018, the year the authorization was given, at the time also for the future years of the WLM initiative. Only one was uploaded in September, the last one in September 2022. On the ToO I advocate for wikimedians not to get involved in questions of what has an artistic character and what not. No. 10 and 11 no artistic character? I strongly disagree, those stairs and their environment have in my opinion (as many of Mario Bottas works) a lot of artistic excellence. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Look at the dates of the uploads, they are different from the ones of creation, most of the photos were taken in 2016 but uploaded in 2018, at first I overlooked that myself. All the photos were uploaded in or after 2018 and always in the month of September (I agree that the authorization doesn't cover photos uploaded outside WLM 2018 and the following editions). Friniate (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, you are right! Thanks. well then I withdraw my request altogether.  Keep all per Frinitate Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Friniate: Wouldn’t it be much better to have a link to this permission PDF on each file description page? Or even better have a copy of this PDF in the VRT data base? — Speravir – 02:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Speravir Well, there is a link to the authorization through the Template:Monumento italiano, although maybe it could be more visible. I agree that it would be better to have these authorizations in the VRT database, but that is something that should be discussed with the people from WMI who organize the contest (the issue was most recently discussed here by @Ruthven and @Paolo Casagrande (WMIT)). Friniate (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hm, I do not see such a link in the template. — Speravir – 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"This is a photo of a monument which is part of cultural heritage of Italy. This monument participates in the contest Wiki Loves Monuments Italia 2018. See authorisations" You have to click on "authorisations". Friniate (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(Later insert:) Friniate and Ruthven, just as information: The template {{Monumento italiano}} was not up to date in German (the language I am speaking) and Macedonian – both lacked the link to the authorisations Friniate referred to. I’ve updated them both: German, Macedonian. If this were present I probably wouldn’t have asked here and in VRT noticeboard. — Speravir – 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Speravir Thank you! Friniate (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Friniate Do you happen to have a direct link the to permission? Because the one in the file page is not specific enough. Ruthven (msg) 12:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ruthven Friniate (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Friniate It seems that the permission is for WLM only. It's badly written, as I said many times. In any case,  Keep given that:
  1. the correct link is used for the Files, and not the generic one as currently done
  2. WLM only photographs are authorised
Cheers, Ruthven (msg) 12:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes yes, it's for WLM only, but all the photos were uploaded within WLM so it's not an issue... As for the link, it cannot be changed manually, somebody more expert than me should modify the template in order to allow that... Friniate (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done I've added manually the links to the authorizations in all the images involved. Friniate (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


Kept: per discussion. Photographs have an authorization. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Files in Category:Casinò di Campione

The building is located on Italian territory within Swiss territory. There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, but there is freedom of panorama in Switzerland. Are these photos really taken in Switzerland?

Ox1997cow (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Many of these have been discussed and ruled as acceptable already. Not least in the deletion request from 2024 immediately above your request in this file. Also, in the case of the only picture taken by me (File:Campione d'Italia 03.jpg), in the deletion request from 2012 to be found at Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Casinò di Campione. Unless some further information has come to light, or there has been a change of policy, then there is no reason to relist them for deletion. And if some further information has come to light, or there has been a change of policy, then you need to explain that in your listing, which you havn't. I would suggest that this listing be rejected and closed. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh dear! I didn't see the previous discussion.  I withdraw my nomination --Ox1997cow (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually, the WLM authorization covers only photos uploaded within WLM 2018 and the following editions... So File:Casino in Campione - panoramio.jpg can be deleted (it wasn't taken on Swiss soil either). For all the other photos,  Keep Friniate (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:FoP-unknown

These statues are located in Japan. Japanese FoP is only applied for buildings.

Ox1997cow (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Mzaki (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Флаг Абайской области.png

Fictional, unencyclopedic flag Nurken (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Boulogne-sur-Mer streetart 2023 32.jpg

According to French law there is no freedom of publication MSbkpZut (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Boulogne-sur-Mer streetart 2023 32.jpg

According to French law there is no freedom of publication MSbkpZut (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Zautbek Turisbekov portrait.jpg

Very questionable copyright Nurken (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Windows Phone end of support notice - WhatsApp Messenger 04.png

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: screenshot Please see: "File:Windows Store blue logo (2011-2015).svg", this is below the threshold of originality for the United States of America. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr Edward Braithwaite.jpg

Clearly not "own work" subject died in 1949 Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This photo was taken by me, uploaded to wikimedia by me, and is a photo of a picture that is over 100 years old (therefore any copyright that may have existed has expired). There is no cause to delete this image. AuroraTiara (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

response to Arjayay: This photo was taken by me, uploaded to wikimedia by me, and is a photo of a picture that is over 100 years old (therefore any copyright that may have existed has expired). There is no cause to delete this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuroraTiara (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep The errors have been corrected and the attribution fixed to show the original creator. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Capture d'écran Mar 31 2025.png

and File:Anvilgo LOGO.webp

Unexplained - has no educational value. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AI generated older man with a pickelhaube.jpg

Although this is in use in a literal sense, it is not COM:INUSE; it is only used quite trivially on a talk page and is otherwise OOS Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending Dronebogus (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Delete - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Hamo & Tribute 2 Love (cropped Dekleva).jpg

Derivative of a picture that was deleted for lacking permission (File:Hamo & Tribute 2 Love.jpg). The author is Marko Alpner, and if there is no evidence of permission, then this one should be deleted too. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamo & Tribute 2 Love (cropped).jpg. — Yerpo Eh? 18:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Anna Augusta Kershaw (1841-1931) portrait (ChatGPT enhanced).png

This is not an enhancement; it just looks like the robot ran this through “sharpen” one too many times like an amateur photographer trying to fix an unfixibly poor image Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep We still need examples of the software, flaws and all. Each version of the software will be different. If the same image was used as a prompt a year later, the image will be different. It will be different if run through Anthropic versus ChatGPT versus other software. There are 46 images in the category. We have more images of kittens than examples of 2025 AI enhancement paired with the prompt image. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    It’s also a COM:AIIP violation Dronebogus (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Incorrect, it follows the exact rules at COM:AIIP: "The original, unaltered image is in the altered image's {{Information}} template. This can be fulfilled either by uploading the original image to Commons and including in the "other versions" field, or by linking to the external source hosting it in the "source" field. The file is tagged with {{AI upscaled}} or {{AI modified}}." --RAN (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per nomination. Nighfidelity (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete I hate to be the one to break the assumption of good faith, but RAN's argument here that this image serves to illustrate the flaws of AI image models is pure wikilawyering. The pattern of his contributions indicates the purpose of his uploads, including the AI-"enhanced" images, is to further a personal family genealogy project. Further evidence of this can be found on Wikidata, including plenty more examples of wikilawyering and combative behavior.
This file is an AI-distorted photo of a non-notable subject. Unless it is in actual use as an illustration, it doesn't belong here. Full stop. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Ricky C. Williams of The Ricky C. Williams Podcast.jpg

Spam from a spammer Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AI enchanced Viciebsk, Vialikaja, Jezuicki. Віцебск, Вялікая, Езуіцкі (S. Jurkoŭski, 1867).png

Unnecessary AI enhancement of a historical photo; makes it look like a modern photograph, which it isn’t Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending Dronebogus (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep it is clearly stated, that this is an AI enchanced photo with all details about the prompt and used model. There is no such policy for "Unnecessary AI enhancement of a historical photo", which is hard to define. Plaga med (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
You can vote to keep it by using {{Vk}}. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
✓ Done Plaga med (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:AI image of an aqueduct swimming pool.jpg

Unused AI image Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep 'Unused' is not a Commons policy reason for deletion.
Given the age of this, it has a certain value in illustrating the historical capacity of AI image generation. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Out of scope. The "historical" argument for keeping AI images has been used a lot and has always seemed like nonsense to me. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete per The Squirrel Conspiracy. JaydenChao (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
 Weak delete The "historical" argument for early AI-generated images is not without merit. We should keep a selection of these that show the changes in capabilities of AI image generation; for example, some examples (not tons) for the issue with mis-generated hands that used to be typical are educationally useful, and some with gibberish text, too. However, I don't think this image of "an aqueduct with a blue tiled channel and clean water" has any particularly interesting characteristics. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Владислав Ступак (talk · contribs)

Five photos of professional quality, made mostly long before their uploading, different style, light and framing, different resolutions, four different cameras, warnings on user's home wiki talk page, concerning text copyright violations while creating articles these photos are uploaded for. Probably not own works.

Komarof (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep files have EXIF data, so they obviously own works. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
A very simplistic conclusion, completely unfounded by practice. If I now take these images and upload them to another website under my name, will they still obviously be my own works? Komarof (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Just claiming what some work uploaded there without permission is not always enough valid reason to delete them from commons.
I saw home wiki talk page of this user and it have two warnings, 1st is about empty page, 2nd one about copyvio. Just 1 warning about copyvio is not enough to delete these photos. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
It's interesting that I've recently came across a similar attempt to lecture me on what's acceptable on Commons and what is not. The difference is that that user has been here for at least 10 years, not just a couple of months. Komarof (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
On this deletion request please talk only about the files, you don't need to deviate from the topic. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
So again: when I need instructions from anybody on what to do and what not to do, you'll be the first to know. In the meantime, please keep your commanding tone to yourself. Komarof (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
About this you should talk on user talk, or at least in user problems, not in deletion request. SomeFancyUsername (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Zaouiet Sidi Abbass ben Zaied 30.jpg

ملفة لا يحتوي على محتوى نعيم قربوسي (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo von Espressif.png

COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside user sandbox, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Rootnote Lebanon.png

self promotional logo, no usage but userpage; out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mural of Biggie & Alfred Hitchcock by Own Dippie.jpg

No FOP in the US for 2D work; see COM:FOP US – Howardcorn33 (💬) 23:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)


Seriously? What if I crop it? Tom.Reding (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
@Tom.Reding: if you crop it to remove the mural, then the photo would have no issue with copyright but I don't see what use a picture of just the road would have. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 00:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
But the problem is with the buildings? If the mural is tightly cropped, then none of the buildings are distinguishable. Tom.Reding (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
The problem is not with the buildings in the photo—US FOP explicitly allows free photos of those—it's mural artwork which is not permissible; see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Toys R Us AI child.webp

 Delete Low quality AI image and acording to the author "every AI generated work is a slop" (citation here) --Willtron (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Speedy keep purely vexatious nomination of notable, legitimately COM:INUSE image as revenge for my nomination of their AI slop for deletion. Yes, it’s 100% AI slop, notable AI slop. This is both w:wp:POINT making and harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Fails COM:SCOPE and is too close to generic AI slop. What's the point of this? How might it meet SCOPE? It looks too much like 'clipart of nerdy kid says "Gee Willikins, Mr Rogers"' and it's not good enough (too sloppy) to pass muster for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep per COM:INUSE if, again, that policy survives what the file creator's hopefully undeliberate assault on it. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Are we not even looking at how they're in use before nominating? It's a notable AI-generated ad. Oh I get it, from the nom this is just a disruptive retaliatory nomination. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete Low quality image and unrelated to the article. RenatoGar (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Are people making no effort at all to understand what it is they're voting on? "Unrelated to the article" except it's discussed explicitly in the article -- the subject of an entire subsection. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Is this a literal screenshot from a Toy's R Us advert? (Rather than an AI recreation of it) In which case, do we have the rights to host it? The idea "Commons decrees that anything and everything once touched by AI is permanently and irrevocably PD." has too much of the monkey selfie about it to pass COM:PRP Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
It’s a screenshot of an AI generated ad. If you actually read the article and understood the context instead of voting based on your first hot take you’d understand that. Dronebogus (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
So answer the question. If this is a literal screenshot from a Toy's R Us advert, then why do we have the rights to host it? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
AI art doesn’t have copyright in the US or most other countries because no human authored it. See template:PD-algorithm. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment, according this news article, the creative director for the advertisement indicates "Sora completed 80% to 85% of the work before the agency went in to make slight corrections to the imagery, similar to how postproduction teams tweak colors or remove smudges after standard ad shoots". So, clearly this advertisement is not 100% AI work, and the "15 to 20 percent" human work might make the video (and this image) to be above COM:TOO US. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I remember another news article that showed a before and after, and it was mostly just cleanup— turning AI gibberish into text and stuff. I don’t think it’s sufficient to claim meaningful human authorship any more than lightly editing something in photoshop. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

File:On This Day… 1776 ΛAMEREEDD.jpg

 Delete Low quality AI image. Acording to the author "every AI generated work is a slop" (citation here) --Willtron (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep purely vexatious nomination of part of a notable work as revenge for my nomination of their AI slop for deletion. Yes, it’s 100% AI slop, notable AI slop. This is both w:wp:POINT making and harassment. Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Delete AI slop. If the author claims it's notable AI slop, then they're going to have to make a clearer case for that. Which is going to be harder in 2026 than a couple of years ago, when it might at least have been novel slop. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep vexatious nomination of a still from a well known AI-generated movie by Darren Aronofsky. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Once again, if it's here on the basis of being a screenshot, are we absolutely sure that we have the rights to do that?
Also, this is far from a 'well known' movie. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment FWIW, Aronofsky is certainly a notable director. I'm not sure whether or not that makes this file notable. Is there any additional basis of notability? - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The massive amount of media coverage? Educationally useful is a lower bar than Wikipedia's notability definition, but even given that, it's a clearly notable production -- infamous, at this point. Just a cursory google shows this was covered by basically every major English language media outlet. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Aronofsky#Nonfiction_work Dronebogus (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending Category:Commons pages with broken file links