Commons:Deletion requests/2025/12/14

December 14

File:Gemini Generated Image 6i6iqh6i6iqh6i6i.png

Out of scope: this is clearly an AI-generated image. If this is a real logo in use by the organization, please use an original image of it, not an AI-generated one. Omphalographer (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

bonjour,
Oui les logo sont officiel, mais n'ayant pas les 3 sous la main je ne pouvais pas en faire la photo direct.
J'ai donc effectivement demandé à gemini de me créer une image rassemblant les 3. Sinon je peut prendre les image sur le net et faire un montage mais elle ne m'appartiendront pas pour autant.
Merci beaucoup de votre attention Jerof37 (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:March For Science (34168890836).jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

keep per Commons:De minimis, the drawing takes up only a small portion of the image. Blur if necessary. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
This is impossible that de minimis can be applied here. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
I have blurred accordingly.  Keep current version. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

File:A group of miners pose for a photo (14057634216).jpg

Old photograph, possibly public domain but more information on the photograph would be needed. Source is a dead link so I cannot check that for more context. Abzeronow (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete That's the "simpleinsomnia" Flickr account that just uploads old-looking photos without any additional information. At least it did before it shut down. We've dealt with it many, many times before. Just before I read this, I tagged nearly 200 such photos as no-source. I've spot checked quite a few with Google Lens and TinEye and the only matches I can find are those that cite back to that Flickr account. If you really want me to convert the {{No source since}} tags to a proper deletion request I can do that.
Also, for what it's worth, the uploader of all these is a sockpuppet who was blocked on their other account for uploaded non-free media after being warned. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
 Comment @RAN: I see you've provided a couple of possible sources for this photo. The first just cites back to the "simpleinsomnia" Flickr account as a source, with no further information. The second provides no information whatsoever. Neither source provides the kind of date, author, or country of origin information that would be helpful to determine public domain status. That's why I tagged it as no-source initially. If there's something I'm missing, please let me know. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Hardeng (talk · contribs)

Unlikely to be own works

Trade (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

👍 LikeAndisheyAzad (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Jean-François Mayer by Jerry McCrea, 1985.png

not public domain, as the author of the photograph is known: Jerry McCrea Toyotsu (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Toyotsu  Keep That the author was known is irrelevant in a no notice situation for copyright purposes. The owner did not put a copyright notice on the issue this photo was published in, as a work for hire for the newspaper. Per {{PD-US-1978-1989}} "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and February 1989, inclusive, without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years."
There is no notice on the issue or near the photo. Neither the newspaper nor the photographer registered the issue or the photograph in the next five years. It is public domain in the country it was first published and taken in (the photo was taken and first published in the United States, by an American), which is all that commons requires. For a photo to be copyrighted in the United States before 1989, it had to receive a copyright notice on its first publication, or be repaired in the next five years. Whether the author was unknown or known does not matter - and even if it was unknown, that would not make any difference in a no notice situation per the law of the home country? Why would you mention this? Plenty of file without known authors are copyrighted, and vice versa. That is not what determines copyright. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Kiri Buba Буба Икринкий.jpg

Obvious copyright violation and missing permission Yousiphh (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Question What makes this an obvious copyright violation and whose permission exactly do we need? The depicted person died in 1913 in the Russian Empire. We have a template for works that were published in the time of the Russian Empire: {{PD-RusEmpire}}. The work is presumably over 110 years old. Nakonana (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
The only potential print source I'm finding is a 1995 book by Гаджи Асланович Абдурагимов (1936 — 2021), where the image can be found on page 273. The book can be found in full length and openly accessible on several websites, e.g.. It doesn't provide any information on the image, however, I think it's safe to assume that Гаджи Асланович Абдурагимов is not the author of the image because his book contains quite a broad range of various illustrations, like images of pottery, old maps, etc. Гаджи Асланович Абдурагимов is too young to have photographed Kiri Buba, and given the variety of illustrations in his book, I doubt that Гаджи Асланович Абдурагимов is a historian, painter/illustrator, cartographer all I one person. The author of the image is someone else, and given that Гаджи Асланович Абдурагимов — a professor of history — used it in his book, I assume it's a historical image of Kiri Buba, not a modern day illustration. Therefore  Keep. Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
It isn't a modern day illustration, the imagination of an unknown (for now) artist from either the 1990s or 2000s. Yousiphh (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
It's clearly not from the 2000s because it appears in the 1995 published book by the history professor I linked. Why would a history professor use an early 1990s illustration, though, in a book where he uses lots of old illustrations? Nakonana (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Also, 1990s-2000s is modern day in arts, I'd say, or at least it's not historical, as in: created around the time the subject was alive. Nakonana (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Do you have evidence to support your claim that it is an image from the 1990s? Nakonana (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
These photo portraits began circulating after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are not in the public domain. The author uploaded the painting, misattributing the artist's name, date, and license. I don't know the artist's name for sure, but I do know that with such incorrect attribution, the file cannot be saved in Wikimedia Commons. Yousiphh (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
What is the source for the claim that the image was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Nakonana (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Bekhbudi.jpg

Obvious copyright violation and missing permission Yousiphh (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It is quite strange to delete license templates, replacing them with an arbitrary new one, and immediately after that nominate them for deletion. If we discuss deletion, then with those templates that were put down at the beginning Hunu (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
@Hunu obvioulsy the painting was made after 1991 (after Uzbekistan's independence, this painting was widely used in textbooks, banners, and websites), but it was falsely recorded in the date as "before 1913". All the permissions are also falsely pointed. Yousiphh (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
What makes this an obvious post-1991 painting? You have not provided any sources for your claim. The depicted guy is an early 20th-century scholar and a member of the Russian Constituent Assembly (1917-1918), according to the wiki article. Why would this be a modern work? Nakonana (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Alamy says "before 1913" and "public domain".  Keep unless actual evidence that this is a post-1991 work is provided. Nakonana (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
The information in Alami is unreliable. This is not a portrait from 1900s or 1910s. Yousiphh (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
OK, let's say that Alamy is unreliable, then where is the source that says that this is a post-1991 painting? Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
I have written several times. These photo portraits began circulating after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As most of the Jadids were repressed, it is impossible to believe in the public domain of this painting. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ubaydullaxo‘ja Asadullaxo‘jaev.jpg. Yousiphh (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you have written it several times but you have not provided a single source for what you wrote. What is the point of linking another DR where you make the exact same claim as here just to face the same question from the community for a source for your claim as here where you equally end up not providing any source like here? The link to the other DR does not offer any new information. You opened this DR with the claim that this is an "obvious" copyvio, so, according to you, it really shouldn't be hard to proof that this is a copyvio. Where is the proof? You have now at least two different people who fail to see the obviousness of this copyright violation. And the fact that in a third DR you continue claiming that it's possibly a work from the 2000s even after I provided clear evidence that it is a pre-2000 work, tells me that you don't have a source for your claims at all.
Also, that those images started to circulate after the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't mean that they were created after the collapse, because there were plenty of things that the Soviet Union suppressed during its time of existence. Those portrays of "members of the Russian Constituent Assembly", "bandits" and "Caucasian Robin Hoods" (depending on ones perspective) could have been among the suppressed material. In the case of the Bekhbudi painting it may be because the Bolsheviks saw the Russian Constituent Assembly as a "bourgeois" parliamentary body, which was not compatible with the Bolsheviks' proletariat ideology. Nakonana (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Siem Reap-Angkor International Airport

Infringement of building designers' copyright. There is no complete Freedom of Panorama in Cambodia. These images are not eligible for the exception, as these show the architectural art as the "principal/main subject for the subsequent reproduction". Wikimedia Commons only accepts buildings from countries where their copyright laws permit the reproduction of buildings with no restrictions. The airport building in question was completed in 2023.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)


 Comment, I would think that the actual design of the statues in File:Copper Brahma Airport.jpg and File:Siem Reap Airport Sculpture.jpg are not copyrightable due to design alone, it's a very generic 4-faced tower which is found in many places across Cambodia's old Hindu temples; that includes Angkor Wat, what is plausibly the basis for said statue given its location. TansoShoshen (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

File:Nicola Paparusso 3.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Timtrent as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: EXIF: Copyright holder Paparusso Communication

There is scope for confusion. The photographer's name in the EXIF is that of the uploader, but the copyright owner is named differently. This simply requires resolution via COM:VRT 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Which country is this from? Is it from a country where someone other than the actual photographer can be the copyright holder? In Germany, for example, only the photographer can be the copyright holder; copyright is legally not transferable. And is the photo from a country where a non-human (i.e. a company) can be a copyright holder? In Russia, for example, only a person can hold copyright, not a company or organization, if I'm not mistaken. If the photo is from a country like Germany or Russia, we can rule out that Paparusso Communication is the copyright holder. Nakonana (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Looks like the source country is Italy. I don't know Italian laws.
But after googling this guy I have to wonder whether he's even notable. According to this not very reliable-source-looking source, he received the literary award "Approdi d’Autore", which is an award that doesn't have a wiki article, and generally speaking I don't see any news websites I recognize reporting about this award. Furthermore, he received the award "Knight of Merit of the Italian Republic", which appears to be a different award than the actually notable Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, because he is not listed in the recipient section (and neither is a certain Massimo Malpighi listed who got the "Knight of Merit of the Italian Republic" in 2015, so that I conclude that "Knight of merit" ≠ "Order of Merit"). I can't find anything about that "knight of merit" award, unless it's supposed to be "knight of the order of merit", then it's the lowest grade (5th class) of the "order of merit". Nicola Paparusso is also said to have received the "Donato di Devozione" of Malta, which appears to be some kind of 3rd class award, which is then divided in another 5 sub-classes where the Donati di Devozione I-III appear to be the 3 lowest sub-classes, per w:it:Medaglie, decorazioni e ordini cavallereschi melitensi. Nakonana (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

File:General Keith Kellog visited Kyiv, September 11-13, 2025 (54962157567).jpg

Not a U.S. Government photo. Provided by the Ukrainian Government.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-envoy-meets-with-ukraines-zelenskyy Ooligan (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Not the same image as the link shows. Zelenskyy has on a different outfit (check the sleeve length) Elisfkc (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Likely a work by Andrew Kravchenko however this specific photo only seems available from US sources, and I suspect uploader will get away with it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Bel. konsulstvo.png

Last remaining image after deletion of copyvios. PNG drone picture without EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  •  Likely this is not drone picture, it could be taken from a 9-story residential building on the other side of the street. — Olgerts V (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach

Global spam of LTA, see m:Stewards'_noticeboard#X-wiki_pages_by_LTA_(wikidata:Q48851673) --NDG (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2025 (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:Opéra Bastille

The blanket statement "because the architect had wished it to be copyleft" is not enough and doesn't comply with COM:L which requires an explicit commercial license from the architect and that such license is specific and irrevocable. If the architect doesn't allow its inclusion in commercial postcards and advertising materials, then this building is still unfree for Commons. There is no acceptable FOP in France, its architect is still living. See an admin's opposing input to my undeletion attempt at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:Opera bastille.JPG. See also , which includes Opéra Bastille as one of the copyright-protected monumental buildings.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  •  Comment If the architect have made a valid statement, that this is copyleft then I think we can keep it. If someone write to us directly via OTRS we should of course try to make them select a specific license etc. But is the statement is not send directly to us I think we should not reject it just because it does not meet our current practice. I bet many old OTRS permissions would not be accepted today for example.
If the architect is alive then pehaps someone that speak French could send a nice mail asking for clarification if needed. --MGA73 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • MGA73 I'm not sure if this will work. Per elcobbola at my failed undeletion attempt, "COM:L requires an explicit license and that such license is specific and irrevocable. Statement that 'the architect had wished it to be copyleft' does not meet these criteria and is entirely inadequate." I realize that it is indeed inadequate because we don't know what type of license does w:Carlos Ott authorize in his blanket statement. CC-BY/CC-BY-SA/PD, or the Commons-unacceptable CC licenses with "NC" (no-commercial) or "ND" (no-derivatives) conditions? A French-speaking (since the architectural artwork is in France) or Spanish-speaking (since the architect hails from a Spanish-speaking country) is encouraged to conduct correspondence to the architect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • JWilz12345 I have not seen the wording of the statement so I can't decide if it is good enough. I just wanted to point out that I do not think we should not be super strict regarding permissions that is not send to us directly. When someone send a permission to OTRS we can be strict because we can easily ask them to clarify and they can easily reply. We can't do that if the statement is not send to us directly. If it is unclear what is meant then I think we should use the least free license instead of just assuming he meant PD. But regarding copyleft then if you read en:Copyleft#Copyleft_principles then it says that it allows derivative works and it is even more clear in the table at en:Copyleft#Types_and_relation_to_other_licenses that "copyleft" does not include NC or ND.
According to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle we should delete if there is "significant doubt about the freedom". It does not mean we should delete all files where ther is the slightest risk.
So in my opinion we can  Keep if we can prove that he did make a statemt and if he did use the word copyleft. However if it is just the uploader that say "I once met him on the street and he told me that he would like his work to be free" then I would  Delete. --MGA73 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@MGA73: the statement is at the category page itself, using an archived source as citation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! The links are broken but on the archieved version on web.archive.org we can see the text. I do not speak French but if the English translation is correct then I think that it is very likely that the architect did in fact whish the opera to be copy left - if SNAPIG (Syndicat national des agences photographiques d'illustration générale) is an organization that can be trusted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@MGA73: that's one thing I can't answer sadly. I cannot understand French too. Hopefully French Wikipedians will help here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MGA73. 73.158.114.70 14:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

If it helps any, here is the English translation (from this updated link):

“We can understand the photographer's anger when we know that among recent monuments only the Bastille Opera House can be freely photographed. The architect (an original?) wanted it to be free of rights. Normally, the copyright of architects is required until seventy years after their death. But when a new 'artist' adds his or her contribution to an old building, it's back to the drawing board... This is typically the case with the Eiffel Tower. To reproduce a photo of this national icon at night, you must first pay a fee to the lighting company, the Société nouvelle d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel. The reason? The lighting, let it be said, is a "work of the soul". At least since a ruling by the Créteil High Court in March 1998. In the same way, fireworks and other sounds and lights are also protected... A bit of an exaggeration?”

Furthermore, from the 'What Can you Photograph in Paris?' official Paris City Hall webpage:

"The panorama exception allows copyright to be neutralised for photographs of architectural works and sculptures permanently placed on public thoroughfares (thus ephemeral works are not included) provided that the photograph is not used for commercial purposes."

As for what really is (or isn't) 'copyleft' or not (for any country), 'istockphoto' (getty images) is (also) a good reference: in the link, notice that none of their Eiffel tower images include its lighting, because the SNTE (Société Nouvelle de la Tour Eiffel) does demand authors' rights for images taken of its lighting additions to the tower. And since Getty straight-out sells images, you can be sure that they know that they would be at the top of the target list for any architect seeking royalties/authors' rights. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: I don't think it is sufficient. To quote the opposing input of Elcobbola (one of Commons' veteran admins) over a deleted image of this same building I was trying to restore then: "COM:L requires an explicit license and that such license is specific and irrevocable. Statement that "the architect had wished (or wanted) it to be copyleft" does not meet these criteria and is entirely inadequate." I think the only question us what degree of freeness does the architect wished? Free photography is out of question. Perhaps free, unrestricted commercial exploitations of images of his work is the thing here. Perhaps the true question is: is architect w:Carlos Ott willing to release his architectural work under free license or public domain in the way that everyone can take photos and exploit the resulting images freely even for commercial purposes? And is his desire to release his work under copyleft perpetual/for eternity? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
As for the Eiffel Tower at night, all of the deleted images of it here were recently restored, on the grounds that the current lighting is too ordinary to pass COM:TOO France, and that the court ruling actually refers to a specific lighting during the 90s (if I can recall correctly). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Does anyone have the actual quote/statement from the architect that they have waived their (copy)rights? -M.nelson (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France, per COM:FOP France. We would need a clear statement from the architect. This would be good for the free content lobby. But "copyleft"is too vague to rely on. --Ellywa (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2021 (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:Opéra Bastille

No FoP in France, and the building was designed by Carlos Ott who is still alive. France knows a standard of life + 70 years.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)  Keep Are you serious ? "The images of the Opera Bastille are free of rights, despite no COM:FOP France. The architect authorized free use of pictures of the Opera. See http://www.snapig.com/fr/Y-a-pas-photo.pdf (archieved version on web.archive.org). Page 23 of this PDF document we can read (in French) : "parmi les monuments récents seul l’Opéra de la Bastille peut être librement photographié. L’architecte [...] l’ayant souhaité libre de droits. (translation : "among recent monuments only the Opéra Bastille can be freely photographed because the architect had wished it to be copyleft"). This document is edited by the SNAPIG (Syndicat national des agences photographiques d'illustration générale), which is quite serious and, according to their website, has been created with the strong wish to respect authors rights.

See also http://www.sne.fr/img/pdf/SNE/Illustration/y-a-pas-photo2.pdf (archieved version on web.archive.org), page 23, or http://www.sne.fr/img/file/pdf/SNE/Commissions/Illustration/espacePublic.pdf (link no longer online), page 10 (document edited by the Syndicat national de l'édition)." --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very interesting. But see above, same argument was made before. If the ones above get undeleted, I withdraw my DR as well. If not, sorry. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sebring12Hrs the architect should send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation (see COM:VRTS) if he really desires to allow everyone to exploit his building for commercial purposes. But there is a likelihood that anti-FoP and anti-Wikipedia group ADAGP will restrain him from doing so. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Files in Category:Opéra Bastille

No COM:FOP France, per above we don't have evidence that the architect released it under a Commons-compliant license. Some of these photos could be cropped to remove the opera house, but they wouldn't be very useful, we already have many high quality photos of Category:Colonne de Juillet.

Consigned (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is it that no-one has tried to email the architect? A bunch of files have been deleted since 2021, just because a lot of Commoners don't know how to read and write in French and no-one has emailed the architect to get the kinds of clarifications Commons requires. It all seems needless and wasteful. Does anyone have a good idea of how best to try to reach him? My written French is intermediate at best (I speak and read better than I write), but I think in any case that it would be best for a trusted admin to write him. User:Yann, perhaps? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Files in Category:Opéra Bastille

No COM:FOP France. These photos all highlight architectural features, as well as the building plan.

Consigned (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Makko - Superbloom Festival 2023 - DSC3507.jpg

This file was initially tagged by Lutheraner as no permission (No permission since). This seems to be questioning (without evidence) a claim of "own work", which should certainly not be a speedy deleiton. Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Die Datei wurde von Benutzer:Moiyeah als angebliches "Eigenes Werk" hochgeladen - laut Metadaten ist der Urheber Markus Maier. Eine Identität zwischen diesen beiden Personen ist nicht ersichtlich. / The file was uploaded by user:Moiyeah as alleged "own work" – according to the metadata, the author is Markus Maier. There is no apparent identity between these two persons. Lutheraner (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
but no particular reason to think they are different, either. "Moiyeah" could easily be a pun on "Maier", and in any case people are not required to use their real name on a Commons account.
Photo style, content, and EXIF data seem entirely consistent with this user's other uploads. Are you saying that all of their "own work" uploads are really photos by a single other person? Because that would be the implication if they are not the same person as "Markus Maier".
(In any case, a doubt like that would not be grounds for a speedy deletion.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have taken the photos. How can I prove it to you? Moiyeah (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
@Moiyeah: I doubt you will have to; these are pretty clearly consistently one person's work.
 Keep, if that wasn't clear. - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep User's uploads have consistent EXIF and authorship data over years. Photo was taken as part of Wikimedia DE's Festivalsommer project, and the user was credentialed to photograph the event (with the credentials archived in VRT). I see absolutely zero reason to suspect shenanigans. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
 Keep As for Kevin. There's no reason to doubt the authorship here and the uploader's ability to grant a licence. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Wappen Parlitz.png

Zwei Gründe: 1. Bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils mutmaßlich unhistorisches, neu erfundendes Wappen; COM:NOTHOST, 2. Copyright fraglich: Wirklich eigenes Werk, also selbst entworfen und gezeichnet? GerritR (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Der Entwurf behandelt ein in der Deutschen Wappenrolle veröffentlichtes Familienwappen (Deutsche Wappenrolle/ADW, Band XXVI, Seite 304, Rollennummer 24176). Der Artikel beschränkt sich auf Blasonierung, heraldische Einordnung und die bibliographisch nachprüfbare Registerstelle; personenbezogene Daten lebender Personen werden nicht genannt. Eine Wappenabbildung ist über Wikimedia Commons eingebunden.Ich bin der Familie zugehörig; der Beitrag erfolgt ohne Bezahlung MarioPausB (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Einträge in die Wappenrolle belegen keine Relevanz. GerritR (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Muslimbek07 (talk · contribs)

Probably copyvio from sub-pages of http://assia.info/ (in Russian)

For example:

  • File:Булунгу.jpg: this is the last image on this page; the page with the image exists at least since Jul 2016, i.e. >2 years earlier than the image was uploaded to Commons

Similarly:

DmitTrix (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Роберт Бровді.jpg

This file was initially tagged by S. Mochar as Copyvio (Copyvio) Denniss (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No explanation given for the Copyvio claim --Denniss (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
As I said, the image is copyrighted. S. Mochar (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
By whom? What's the source for your claim? --Denniss (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
This is a photo by Kostiantyn Liberov for the associated press. S. Mochar (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Why are you so fiercely defending this photo? The uploader did not provide reliable information about the source of this photo; instead, they simply indicated the name of a brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. You cannot even verify whether this photo is protected by copyright, and therefore it should be deleted without any explanation from me. S. Mochar (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Mochar, why are you so fiercely against this image: STRONG KEEP

Thera are hundreds of images free of copyright of Brovdi. This is just one of them. So please, reply my, why don't you want to keep it, and how pays you for this action? He's a hero. HarryWurst (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Роберт Бровді (кроп).jpg

This file was initially tagged by S. Mochar as Copyvio (Copyvio) Denniss (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No explanation given for the Copyvio claim --Denniss (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)