Commons:Deletion requests/2026/03/18

March 18

File:JohanChristianDahlWrack.jpg

very bad quality, very low resolution, wrong colors better File:Dahl, Johan Christian Clausen - Shipwreck at the coast of Norway - Nasjonalgalleriet.jpg Oursana (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:JKTphoto.jpg

The uploader claims VRT permission is pending, but how could that even be valid with an unknown author? Also, is this the same photo as the recently-deleted ? Best as I remember, it is. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I am the person who uploaded the file. What do I need to do make this image kosher? Below is what I have done so far.
I followed the instructions I found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Uploading_images):
"When uploading an image, you have to:
make sure the image is published under a free copyright license
clearly label the origin and the copyright license of the image."
I contacted the photographer who created this image. He completed Wikipedia's prescribed process by following the steps on this email generator (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator), then sending his written consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
Resulting in this waiver:
I hereby affirm that I, James Poulson, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:
content attached to this email
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
James Poulson
2026-03-19
[generated using relgen.js]
The photographer has shared all of this with me. HalcyonTimez (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon KBHFebcn1987.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon INT+yellowbcn1987.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon KBHFabcn1987 01.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon INT+greenbcn1987.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon INT+bluebcn1987.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:BSicon BHFbcn1987.svg

Not up to BSicon standards. SomeRailfan (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Ulan Bator subdivisions-ru.png

It should be removed since it incorrectly displays the boundaries of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Saruul 04 (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:US Primary Copper Production v3.svg

I should have requested to overwrite other file instead. Odium1175 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

To be more specific, I should have requested to overwrite File:US Primary Copper Production v2.svg which I have since done: Allow Overwriting of File:US Primary Copper Production v2.svg. Odium1175 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:MC Macau Peninsula 十月初五日街 shop 黃枝記雲吞麵店 decor 梁紀 Liang Ji painting 花鳥圖 art March 2026 R12S 02.jpg

No public interior FOP in Macau, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Summary table. Yumeto (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:MC Macau Peninsula 十月初五日街 shop 黃枝記雲吞麵店 decor 梁紀 Liang Ji painting 花鳥圖 art March 2026 R12S 03.jpg

No public interior FOP in Macau, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Summary table. Yumeto (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Asnan camp néolithique dit de l'éperon barré du Montgué représentation artistique 16.06.2024 ERNOUF Guillaume.jpg

Unused (outside of talk page) AI image Dronebogus (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep very educational image, illustrating how long-past life and society may have looked like. Saint Germinais uploaded lots of other archaeology-related files indicating some expertise. Files do not have to be used. This one clearly is useful and within COM:EDUSE. Invalid deletion rationale and no need to delete this file, it's of good quality and useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
So people (and goats) back then were apparently severely deformed from radiation exposure? Good to know Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
This a) can be improved via a new revision where these things are fixed (fixing such things becomes increasingly easy) and b) it doesn't negate the point and usefulness of the image which is not about the technical execution to make each animal/component precisely accurate in shape. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
If this was a human made image by, say, me, you’d take those nitpicks and run around the globe with them. But with AI it’s handwaved as unimportant or easily fixed. Dronebogus (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Stop making accusation and/or assumptions. If this was human-made I would also voted keep and also would have said it's easy to fix. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
No you wouldn’t. Dronebogus (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Logo Ferengi.svg

This file was initially tagged by Schetm as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Adapted from the copyrighted Star Trek series - doubtful that the user who claims this as his own work actually created this. Widely used, possibly simple enough geometry. Converting to DR. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Concourse of Nanyuan Station, 202405.jpg

Being replaces by File:Concourse of Nanyuan Station, 202405.jpg because its lower quality. Benteds (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Name Board of Nanyuan Station, 202405.jpg

Being replaced by File:Platform (to Longan) of Nanyuan Station of Hangzhou Metro Line 9 20250322.jpg because of its poor quality. Benteds (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Platform of Nanyuan Station, 202405.jpg

Being replaced by File:Full Platform of Nanyuan Station of Hangzhou Metro Line 9 20250322.jpg because of its poor quality. No blurring for other passengers. Benteds (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Name board of Pengbu Station, 202404.jpg

Being replaced by File:Platform 4 of Pengbu Station, 202508.jpg. Odd angles and no blurring for other passengers. Benteds (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Media without a source as of 10 March 2026

no source?

Krd 06:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Looks to me like the following are below TOO, in roughly decreasing order of my confidence in that:
That is not by any means an exhaustive list, just enough of these to make me dubious about this DR. I lean toward a procedural keep unless Krd wants to take the time to try to narrow this down to ones that are over TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Abu Dhabi TV (English).png

Because my other files are getting deleted MaherMahoory (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Baynounah Television.png

Because my other files are getting to deletion MaherMahoory (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the House of Windsor.png

These are not the arms of the houses. Not useful for an educational purpose. DrKay (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Artificial planet by ChatGPT Image May 3, 2025, 04 29 19 PM.png

Unused AI generated image Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Used. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
You inserting them 5 seconds ago and then claiming they’re now in use feels like gaming the system, especially since I also noticed someone removed an “AI slop gallery” from the page. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
This is false. The image was used before. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective Indeed. It's indeed gaming the system - removing images and claiming they can be deleted as unused is good, but if someone rescues them and adds them somewhere they are "gaming the system"? Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep Keep per COM:INUSE. The user still can not separate individual cases from rules/principles and does not understand the importance and legitimacy of this policy. File is of sufficient quality and used at pl:Sztuczna planeta. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
If this had been me removing the image, you would have immediately called it system gaming. But when it’s used in favor of AI, it’s policy that must be respected. Dronebogus (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I never called it system gaming. In any case, the file has been in use long before the DR already as far as I could see. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Edit replaced speedy keep with keep: DR should be left open for quite a while to see whether the files are removed. I think the concept would do well with an illustration, there are no sufficient good quality illustrations available for the concept that are made without AI (none actually), so an AI illustration is suitable there; however, the particular files are all of low-mediocre quality and 2 images would be enough. However (again) the AI images could be improved, maybe via an upload as a new revision and I see no immediate/urgent need to delete that file or any need for it even if it's low quality as long as there aren't better alternatives. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep as long as it's in use. At the time of this !vote, the image is being used in the Polish Wikipedia. The place to argue whether it should be used is the talk page of the article, not here. Chess enjoyer (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep per Chess enjoyer, Wikipedia says "The concept of an artificial planet appears in many works of science fiction" so an artist impression of what that might look like seems acceptable. It's not a particularly good illustration of an artificial planet though. When you look at it, what are you looking at? It looks like the die of a microchip. Of course you can't make out what anything is, because it's nothing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Normally, I would close this as "kept": Image is currently in use in article namespace in two Wikipedia language versions (Polish and Esperanto), so COM:INUSE applies, we don't overrule other projects. However, it has to be said that the image was *not* in use at the time of nomination, and that was not the nominator's doing - it was removed from Polish Wikipedia with this edit a week before, by a different editor, as part of an "AI slop gallery". User Piotrus - the uploader of this image - is the one who re-inserted it there, and then also inserted it in Esperanto Wikipedia. So it does look a bit like like one man's mission to push his AI-generated image into Wikipedia, and maybe not a clear-cut case of INUSE. I'm leaving this for the next admin to decide. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
    Then again Dronebogus is also on a one-man's mission to push delete any AI-generated images from Commons so that evens it out Trade (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

File:East-Spring-Secondary-School-297x300.jpg

I do believe the {{PD-textlogo}} template in that American law considers this a textual public-domain logo; however, as a representation of a Singaporean school, the logo is subject to Singaporean law, which has a history of being lax on the originality of copyrighted items (see COM:TOO Singapore). Perhaps it could be locally uploaded on en.wp as fair use? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 08:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:I beati ascendono al cielo, Cappella di San Michele (chiesa del Corlo, Lonato).jpg

Titolo errato Il Lonatese (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Il Lonatese: per favore, richiedi una rinomina; io non posso perché non parlo italiano. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
↓
Commons:Rinominare file Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 03:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tellmethetruth555 (talk · contribs)

No exif, look like DW's - unlikely to be own work as claimed

Gbawden (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:ДАХмО 685-3-10. 1806-1826. Метрична книга сіл приходу Проскурівського костелу.pdf

Duplicate of c:File:ДАХмО 685-3-10. 1806-1826. Метрична книга костелу м. Сказинці Проскурівського повіту. Смерть.pdf Madvin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Luis Brito, 2012.jpg

Per COM:PCP as likely copyvio. The copyright holder in the exif metadata cannot be linked to the user. Nv8200pa (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files found with Special:Search/"Alex Pfeiffer"

No evidence that this is PD as claimed. Source says (c)

Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Abeja del género Eulaema 09-09-2025a.jpg

No es del género Eulaema, es del género Eufriesea. Eliminada la subiré de nuevo con el nombre de archivo correcto y nueva descripción. Carlos A. Padrón P. (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin: this page appears to be sectioned, with the same section name for every section, and no indication how (if at all) the sections differ from each other. I have put my own comments at the bottom (assuming no one adds yet more sections). Please read that before closing any of this. I will not bother making the same remark in each of these sections. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I have renamed some of them. Amazingloong (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed people at what appears to be a private event. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures, possibly containing the uploader in some cases, possible in none. They appear to have no educational value. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Files from Sylvain Kalache Flickr stream with bad file names

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random unnamed places. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures,. They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannto be retried for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep as a procedural keep (this applies to all sections here; if the subheads have significance, it is completely opaque to me). I'd have no problem with a fair number of these being deleted, but unless we were to come to a consensus that Fabe56's uploads should be deleted, this DR is as indiscriminate as the uploads were. @Timtrent: you keep quoting where the uploader said something petulant on their talk page, but that is not a reason for deletion unless we were to reach some sort of consensus to delete their uploads.
Just as a few examples of what should be kept (and, no, I did not by any means go through all these files; I looked at only a dozen and found at least 5 I would keep):
There may also be a lot of useless files here, I don't know, but we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel Each of these has been created as a separate DR because the entire category was in excess of 4,300 files. Keeping them willy nilly is keeping many olympic sized swimming pools of bathwater in case there might be a baby at the bottom.
Of course there is a better way to handle this. What is it? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Timtrent: At least do any scope-based mass DRs with a visual tool that lets you skim through and see if just visually the files look worth keeping. Yes, the many photos you've nominated of unidentified people in presumably non-notable tech gatherings should be deleted, but if you are hoovering up images of the Nepalese countryside, or good photos of San Francisco, then this apparently amounts to "I want to delete everything this person uploaded." I stand by my statement that you have absolutely not built a consensus to do that. Again: I picked a dozen files at random and found five I think there is almost no question are "keeps". (FWIW, at least two of the others were "take it or leave it," the sort of thing where I would never have nominated them for deletion, but don't really care if we lose them.) Do you disagree about those particular files? I don't know whether they are representative or not, but I'm certainly not going to vote to throw these all away on the presumption that what I found wasn't representative.
Also, I cannot imagine how anything you said here explains repeating the same heading on each section of this page, which basically makes the headings worse than useless.
It's not like you've found a bunch of copyvios or other files where failing to delete quickly might put us or (more likely) some re-user in legal trouble. The downside of keeping some legal but useless files on Commons a little longer—files that are not in any category anyone but a maintainer would ever look at and that probably would not come up in any reasonable search—is relatively small. And since we virtually never hard-delete, they will take up just as much space on our servers once they are "deleted". They should be dealt with, but not at the risk of throwing away a ton of good files. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Jmabel I am using VFC, which allows a cursory scan. I grant you that some errors will be made using this or any tool.
I have obviously not explained the headings well enough. I think I also ought to have used VFC better and told it to create [deletion name] part 1 etc, whereas by default when nominating files in a category it chooses the category name each time, and I allowed it to do this. I had thought that to be acceptable. I now see that it is not. Thus, when I created several DRs on a large category, it created all these discrete DRs on this page here, and placed the same heading.
The discussion about consensus should be held and probably held at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56, where the matter is unresolved. At the moment I have been doing this with good faith and intent. Your objection is equally with good faith and intent. We do not disagree with each other except in the delete/keep matter. We both wish to improve Commons. If we can set up the discussion in the correct venue to frame what consensus might be and to reach it then that will be both of great use for this uploader's enormous tranche of uncritical uploads and for other bulk uploaders, and may produce better overall upload quality control. Perhaps you would wish to frame that discussion there, or to choose a different and more general venue, referring to that discussion? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Timtrent: It's not just a matter of having headings. Files that are nominated together in a DR should at least be likely to stand or fall together. If your DR is a mix of images of unidentified people at non-notable meetings (which we almost certainly should delete) with good pictures of Nepal (which we almost certainly should keep), then it is not a good DR. That is why I am asking for a procedural close. That would, in turn, allow a useful DR where we would likely get agreement to delete a bunch of files.
I don't think you will get consensus to delete files just because Fabe56 uploaded them, and I would be one of the people opposing that consensus. If you want to build that consensus over my objection, it's really on you to move that forward. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I have to agree with @Jmabel here. @Timtrent, you're clearly going too far and instead of creating such monstrous deletion discussions, you should first select what should be deleted and why. Your last three deletion discussions of this kind took a while to process; I invested several hours in one of them. Opening each image individually, assessing whether the file was in scope or not, etc.. It would be the same here; processing this request would probably take a whole day. I've only opened a few images so far; File:DSC 6648 (12006820464).jpg would probably be easily deleted under {{Logo}}, and indeed all images in Category:While42 Paris - 1 year anniversary would be deletable (Random ppl of a random meeting), along with the categories themselves. The same likely applies to Category:Women in Tech Meet-Up at LinkedIn, 2015-03-27, and something like File:DSC 6462 (16781585158).jpg is simply nonsense. But then we also have images like File:DSC 7098 (23039619869).jpg, File:IMGP5826 (3308936460).jpg, File:DSC 7174 (23298994012).jpg or those showing the interior of Alcatraz, like File:IMGP5111 (5193362732).jpg (we have many of the exterior, but what about the interior?) which should definitely be kept and in my opinion should never have been subject to a deletion request in the first place. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 04:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • A blanket deletion request should get a blanket denial. DS (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
     Keep Keep all files in all sections.
    I aggree with @Ziv and @Jmabel.
    To the closing Admin., this massive and excessive Deletion Request is not well done and processing this DR would set a negative procedural precedent.
    As stated by @DragonflySixtyseven, I agree -
    • "A blanket deletion request should get a blanket denial."
    • @Timtrent - If a blanket denial is done, I suggest you resubmit much smaller groups of similar files with the same DR reason within that group. -- Ooligan (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    And, honestly, most of the ones that were already deleted (except for the ones of random people) should probably be restored. DS (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep With respect to the nominator, I understand the annoyance of having to review a sudden influx of material. Frankly, a lot of bot uploads are out of scope and the accountability for the uploader to review them is often not upheld. However, it is easier to delete than to reupload and I think it would be a much more fruitful endeavor to sort through the uploads now rather than mass delete and try to work backwards. I have uploaded some of the original Flickr user's work before, so I do know that some photos would be usable. -- BriefEdits 01:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Abeja del género Eulaema 09-09-2025b.jpg

No es del género Eulaema, es del género Eufriesea. Eliminada la subiré de nuevo con el nombre de archivo correcto y nueva descripción. Carlos A. Padrón P. (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Abeja del género Eulaema 09-09-2025c.jpg

No es del género Eulaema, es del género Eufriesea. Eliminada la subiré de nuevo con el nombre de archivo correcto y nueva descripción. Carlos A. Padrón P. (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Abeja del género Eulaema 09-09-2025d.jpg

No es del género Eulaema, es del género Eufriesea. Eliminada la subiré de nuevo con el nombre de archivo correcto y nueva descripción. Carlos A. Padrón P. (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Abeja del género Eulaema 09-09-2025e.jpg

No es del género Eulaema, es del género Eufriesea. Eliminada la subiré de nuevo con el nombre de archivo correcto y nueva descripción. Carlos A. Padrón P. (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by CineMusica2026 (talk · contribs)

None of these are own work, mostly DW's

Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:California-wakeboarding17 (3997512587).jpg

random person - mass upload by Fabe56 Xocolatl (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by AngelaMuntean (talk · contribs)

Copyrighted book covers.

Gikü (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep File:Elemente de mecanica teoretica.png per simple work
 Delete all others TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Radio Habana Cuba.svg

There is no evidence that this logo is licensed under Creative Commons. The user who uploaded it claims ownership, but it is the logo of a Cuban media outlet and likely has a different license, although according to their website, it may be copyrighted. Taichi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Louvre Pyramid @ Paris (8026033519).jpg

The building was completed in 1989 by I. M. Pei (1917–2019). There is no freedom of panorama in France. The copyright term of the country is 70 years, and the image can be undeleted in 2090 A1Cafel (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Napoleone26 (talk · contribs)

All these logos are taken from Total War: Rome II, a video-game developed by Creative Assembly and published by Sega. It is possible that a couple of these logos are below the threshold of originality, but even in this case, it has to be carefully evaluated by the community.

Ruthven (msg) 14:15, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Siège social de Télé-Québec.jpg

Incoming reupload with correct licensing (actual is wrong) Dadali21 (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:OMORI Emotions Chart.png

Non-free media information. Screenshot from the game Omori (link). Metra pro (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

2D works at Hunan University of Humanities, Science and Technology

No FoP for 2D works in China. This noticeboard displays a "Table of Categories and Collection Distribution of the Chinese Library Classification". Its left side shows the Chinese Library Classification, the middle section shows the distribution areas, and the right side shows the distribution floors. The creative selection, arrangement, and typography of the table content are protected by copyright as a compilation work or a typographical design work. 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. Furthermore, the Chinese Library Classification itself is protected by intellectual property rights. The Editorial Committee of the Chinese Library Classification explicitly states: "The Chinese Library Classification is the intellectual product of its Editorial Committee, and its intellectual property rights are protected by law. The original Chinese text reads:"《中国图书馆分类法》（以下简称《中图法》）是《中图法》编委会的知识产品，其知识产权受法律保护。" For reference, the statement on its official website: Chinese Library Classification --Huangdan2060 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Disappointment facial expression.jpg

Unused AI slop Dronebogus (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)


This seems to show what it says? Why is that slop? Someone might need this to show the topic or whatever. You seem to be just wanting to delete it because it is AI generated? Nesnad (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

If you wanted to illustrate emotion, you should use pictures of or by actual humans. Take File:Centreville High School (Virginia) 1998 · DD-SP-99-04111.JPEG for example. It shows real people in a relatable situation— losing a sports tournament. The context is valuable and their feelings are real and powerfully conveyed by their body language and expressions. It’s a moving picture. The only issue is it’s slightly grainy on account of being an older image. The AI goes for a SUPER-DUPER-ULTRA-6K-ULTRA-HD-ULTRA-REALISTIC hyper-closeup and and the result is something that is repulsive in its artificiality and unnecessary detail without the simple humanity of the photograph. Simply put, it’s a bad image that distracts from what it’s already illustrating poorly. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Like I said before, then campaign for a rules change. As it is, you are suppose to assume good faith on the part of the uploaders and assuming they wanted to share bad images is unfair. And beyond that, you seem to think that AI makes things unworthy, but that's just an opinion. You say it's repulsive and etc but I'm not sure everyone sees the world through the same eyes. If the rules change, and we can't upload AI, then that is the way it becomes. But without that rule, I think this upload is just as valid as a photo or a drawing or a SVG file or a render from Blender etc, it's just another way that people illustrate things in the 21st century. Nesnad (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Beyond the aesthetics generative AI is an ethical black hole founded on rampant plagiarism that will likely be hit with a tsunami of copyright infringement cases in the coming years. On the other hand people have been using photography for 200 years and drawing and painting since… well, forever, and neither of those have the issues or divisiveness AI has. It’s the difference between using something because it does something that couldn’t be done before and using something that does the same thing as perfectly good existing technologies just because it’s new. Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
The same was said about photography when it came, that it would destroy "real" art and it was inferior to paintings etc etc. Many made your exact same (or similar) arguments against photography because it was mechanical and "not real" and etc etc. Ref: https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ I think you just have an irrational fear or hatred for AI work. Yes, it shouldn't be the only tool people use. But thinking it is "likely" to be considered infringement doesn't make it so, unless you are the creator of the universe. And if it were to ever be considered infringement, Wikimedia has a robust copyvio system that can handle that if need be. (You are ignoring though that some AIs aren't even trained on copyrighted works, there are many ways to train machine brains.) I do think people should use many different tools and people that only use AI should expand and try other methods of illustration, too. That said, you seem to think things are inherently bad just because they are AI, which seems unfair. Nesnad (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
We aren’t talking about fine art here. We are talking about utilitarian art. Photography largely outmoded painting as utilitarian art because it is superior to it in that field in every way. AI is not superior to photography as utilitarian art because people instinctively trust, even though image manipulation is as old as photography itself, that the “camera never lies”. And good-faith contributors on Wikimedia probably aren’t maliciously manipulating images. People associate AI with deepfakes, hoaxes, “hallucinations”, and nonsense misinformation like putting glue on pizza to make the cheese stick. And even good faith AI contributors can’t fully control those things. Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is surprisingly difficult to find good quality free educational photos of distinct human facial expressions of different emotions. Hence, in teaching v: Motivation and emotion, I also use some AI images. The quality of the AI image generations for facial expressions improves each year I teach this unit. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk

I provided an example. I don’t know how people find these hard to find. --Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dronebogus the example you offered, in my opinion, is not a sufficiently good teaching example of a disappointed facial expression portrait and is low resolution (1,250 kb before any cropping with a dead link to the high-res version). The image is also culturally-specific (US college sporting context) rather than generic/universal.
Are you aware of other images that may be suitable e.g., for use in this lecture about 20 individual emotions and, more specifically, this slide about disappointment? -- Jtneill - Talk 13:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
File:Wayuu woman with sad face in the market buying.jpg Dronebogus (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
That's a promising candidate for illustrating disappointment (thankyou for the suggestion). However, it also shows the challenges of educatively illustrating the subtle differences in facial expression for different types of human emotions. The Wayuu woman image (as per the name of the file) better illustrates the emotion of sadness (notice the downturned mouth at the corners) or perhaps disgust (scrunched nose) which differ from the emotion of disappointment (where the mouth and nose are typically more neutral). Essentially, disappointment is more suppressive whereas sadness is more expressive.
For noting: v:Motivation and emotion/Book/2022/Disappointment is being edited by User:Dronebogus and myself. -- Jtneill - Talk 22:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Nishanthnichuvs (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:CustomTentswithLogo.png

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DI Herald (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Decapilogo.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:DATA JUNKIE.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by D2LC (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:ECHISERO PERKIN VO NO SOY VIO TU PAPIS LOS THECOLINAS.webm

what does this even show Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Blacksmithing popularly known as ikpu uzu.ogg

technical issues with the video Prototyperspective (talk) 15:07, 18 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:Driver's area by Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah.jpg

the phhotographer: Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah no longer wants his Photos/names up on the web XXVII xxvii (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Not a recent upload, in scope; Please see COM:LRV. --Wdwd (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Driver's area by Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah.jpg

my contribution, i need it deleted XXVII xxvii (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, this photograph is uploaded 6 years ago, so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (COM:CSD#G7). Please see Commons:Courtesy deletions and provide a valid reason for deletion. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:43, 18 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:ISTC TRANSPORT YARD by Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah.jpg

the phhotographer Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah no longer wants his Photos/names up on the web XXVII xxvii (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  • You mean you don't. But you uploaded this while agreeing to an irrevocable license almost 5 years ago. So unless there's an FoP problem with the photograph, why should you get a courtesy deletion? Same question for every photo of yours that you're asking to remove from Commons in violation of the license you agreed to, just because you no longer want it up. Give us good reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Not a recent upload, in scope; Please see COM:LRV. --Wdwd (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

File:ISTC TRANSPORT YARD by Blaise Daniel Korley Ahumah.jpg

my contribution, i need it deleted XXVII xxvii (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Flandria12 (talk · contribs)

Collection of maps with unclear copyright status, uploaded as 'own works'.

Quick1984 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Quick1984 I'm the author of the files. What do you see as a violation? The maps were created using satellite imagery, and the administrative divisions were created using OSM.Flandria12 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
And what about File:КАРТА ЧЕЧЕНСКОЙ РЕСПУБЛИКИ 2021.jpg? Quick1984 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Quick1984 corrected 1 Flandria12 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Quick1984 Please look, I've corrected it here. Should this be added to each file you marked? Flandria12 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, please, do this. You can use VisualFileChange.js. Quick1984 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
@Quick1984 It looks like everything is ready! Flandria12 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Now  I withdraw my nomination, I've removed deletion templates. --Quick1984 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:SMZA 20260307 133055.jpg

Building under construction. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Aristorkle (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:SM City Zamboanga (Construction 2026-02-04).jpg

Building under construction. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Aristorkle (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Souillac.png

Not own work, watermarked. Romano1981 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Легковушка после ДТП в 2015 году.png

Vandal\s contribution not in use anymore Bilderling (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:17th Classic Off-Road Reliability Ride in Isny

Please refer to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Uploads by Fabe56 where this uploader has uploaded multiple files uncritically from Flickr. This tranche is a set of pictures of random off road motorcyclists at an event. Even though the Flicker licence is acceptable, they appear to be a collection of private pictures, many of which are duplicates or newer duplicates They appear to have no educational value. since they are unnamed and cannot be retriveed for easy use. Commons is not a host for private pictures. This diff where the uploader states "All my upload must be deleted ASAP, so do not waste time here." may be relevant. Any judged to have genuine educational value need to be renamed to reflect that and potentially have their categories adjusted

This list is truncated for the daily list. The DR itself contains significantly more files 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Menara Keagungan Limboto.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia and probably the photo violates architect's copyright. Taivo (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Armond Lloyd NFL Alumni Academy.jpg

Metadata credits Karen Medders Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:U.S. Navy Information Systems Technician 1st Class Paul Labasan, right, selected for promotion to chief petty officer (CPO), assigned to the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island (LHD 8), serves food at St 130827-N-QW737-060.jpg

For personal security ~2026-17118-81 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would a 13-year-old photo, released by the U.S. Navy at that time, now be a security issue? (Also online at https://nara.getarchive.net/media/time-for-food-12beb800). - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
 Speedy keep Nonsense deletion request.So should this be deleted because it's a privacy breach on the car owner? LuvsMG481 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
@LuvsMG481: I fail to see any relevance in the example you just provided. - Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
 Keep. No valid deletion rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Chaldean National Congress Logo.jpg

Uploader request, not clear if the copyright for the party logo is still owned by the party or if it's in the PD PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Joseph Heathcott.jpg

Apparently not own work: en:Wikipedia:Teahouse#Correcting an article of which I am the subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 18 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:Windows screenshots

COM:DW? What's the limit of originality?

Yann (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  •  Delete One or two words alone do not pass the threshold of originality but these images are far beyond that. In most cases, layout alone is copyright-protected. But there is even more:
  1. File:EjecutableBlender.png: Contains two computer icons that are by themselves copyright-protected.
  2. File:Win98ins1.gif: Contains one computer icon that is by itself copyright-protected.
  3. File:Win98ins2.gif: Contains one computer icon that is by itself copyright-protected.
  4. File:Win98ins6.gif: Contains four computer icons that are by themselves copyright-protected.
  5. File:Win98ins7.gif: Too many graphic assets; neither are de minimis.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Deleted, to complex for PD-text; Exempt #3,#8,#9 which are below COM:TOO.--Wdwd (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Files in Category:Windows screenshots

non-free software screenshots

JaydenChao (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Andrea del verrocchio, morte di francesca pitti tornabuoni.jpg

very bad quality very blurry better File: Andrea del verrocchio e bottega, morte di francesca pitti tornabuoni, forse da s.m. sopra minerva a roma, 1477 ca. 01.jpg, File:Francesco di simone ferrucci, morte di francesca pitti tornabuoni, 1480 ca. (bargello) 01.jpg, File: Francesco di simone ferrucci, morte di francesca pitti tornabuoni, 1480 ca. (bargello) 01 (cropped).jpg, File:The Death of Francesco Tornabuoni.jpg Oursana (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok --Sailko (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dr. Pamela Ramirez - QueeNoble (cropped).jpg

Not an original image of the person Wikivisionnary (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

what do you mean by that? It is cropped and that is permitted. Isn't it? Agaath (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Wikivisionnary: Can you explain your request? Is it too small perhaps?--Agaath (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)


File:Dr. Pamela Ramirez - QueeNoble.jpg

Not an original image of the person. Use File:Dr. Pamela Ramirez, PsyD, PhD, MD, Psychiatrist QueenNoble.jpg instead. Wikivisionnary (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Plan du "métro".png

obvious copyvio from network website : https://media-prd.myastuce.fr/uploads/assets/M_202601_9982e15dbb.pdf Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Le T5 à l'arrêt Champlain - Rouen, Saint-Sever.png

no authorization from actu76 to use this photo Lyon-St-Clair (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2026 Illinois attorney general Republican primary election results map by county.svg

There wasn't a contested primary election for this office. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Cour-de-cassation-haiti-actunews7.jpg

The file name, quality, and lack of metadata all suggest this image was downloaded from the now defunct ActuNews7 Traumnovelle (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Sleep Token logo.svg

Above British threshold of originality QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if I’m doing this right, but… why is this up for deletion? How can the community prevent that from happening?
Xx rapunzel xx (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Xx rapunzel xx: You can argue as to why you think this file should be kept, and/or provide counterarguments as to why you don't think it's above the British threshold of originality QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
 Comment This file may be reuploaded locally on Wikipedia in accordance to the US TOO law. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Done - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Pako Ayestaran 2016.jpg

Cropped version of this photograph published in 2016 https://plazadeportiva.valenciaplaza.com/plazadeportiva/pako-ayestaran-pierde-casi-todas-sus-opciones-de-seguir image has all the hallmarks of a false claim of "own work", including professional quality and lack of metadata Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pako Ayestaran 2016 (Cropped).jpg

Image is cropped from this one published in 2016 https://plazadeportiva.valenciaplaza.com/plazadeportiva/pako-ayestaran-pierde-casi-todas-sus-opciones-de-seguir Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Pako Ayestaran Press Conference 2014.png

Cropped from here, published by club in 2015 https://www.maccabi-tlv.co.il/en/2015/04/pako-the-title-race-is-not-over/ Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Turkiye Kürtleri.png

Description is the most vile thing i ever read ~2026-17315-65 (talk) 19:33, 18 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 uploaded by BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

These are all old images/postcards from 1910 or later, tagged with {{PD-old-100}}. None have evidence that the photographer/creator died 100 years ago, and they are not 120 years old as needed by {{Pd-old-assumed}}.

To see all 44 items in this DR, see the following search link: Delete "23:21, 16 March 2026"

Consigned (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Some may be PD, but without better sourcing and licensing this cannot be determined; no evident progress in sorting any to be kept. (No prejudging reuploading of any that can be shown to be PD with proper info and license.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:49, 4 April 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 BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

Old photos/postcards tagged with {{Self}} / {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Definitely not own work or CC licensed; not yet 120 years old needed for {{PD-old-assumed}}.

Consigned (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Some may be PD, but without better sourcing and licensing this cannot be determined; no evident progress in sorting any to be kept. (No prejudging reuploading of any that can be shown to be PD with proper info and license.). --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

Photos/postcards from 1940 and later all tagged with {{PD-old}} or some variant. Missing evidence that photographer died over 70 years ago.

Consigned (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep The Mexican ones. {{PD-Mexico}} Tbhotch™ 02:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Specifically do you mean the last part of PD-Mexico, Anonymous works are considered in the public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified? -Consigned (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Specifically I mean "It is an artistic or literary work published before 1918" for files published before 1918". For others I refer to the text you highlighted, example: File:Emiliano Zapata and followers.jpg. Tbhotch™ 07:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by BrugesFR (talk · contribs)

Files missing source - unable to confirm they're PD, particularly in the US which may depend on publication date (COM:HIRTLE).

Consigned (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  •  Keep All appear to be PD, the newest is 1908 and the earliest is 1867. --RAN (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Deline.png

and File:Screenshot improf.png

Unexplained - has no educational value. Rathfelder (talk) 20:07, 18 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 uploaded by Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Questionable authorship claims. Low-resolution photos with no metadata. The other half of the files uploaded by the user turned out to be copyright violations.

—LX (talk, contribs) 16:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2012 (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 Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Taken from a catalogue. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader.

Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Historical photos. Unlikely to be own work by the hywiki uploader. Sources are needed in order to determine the copyright status.

Stefan2 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Small size, no EXIF data, PNG so probable screenshots, very unlikely to be own works.

Yann (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Yann, one of those is a redirect. You meant the redirect target, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course. Fixed. Yann (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •  Delete The file names suggest that these are part of a set together with File:2) Gayana Sarkisyants Pole Dancing.PNG, which I tagged as copyvio. I think that this makes it very probable that the other two images also are copyvios. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 8 January 2016 (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 Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Фото сделаны в разные периоды жизни и в разных условиях, скорее всего, взяты из семейного архива, обработаны и загружены на Commons. Исходников нет ни у одного фото.

Dogad75 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dogad75 my Russian is not that good, so I'm going to respond to you in English. Yes, these photos have been taken during different life periods of this person. I've been donated this photos by his family members also I personally took some of them. This is why I have a complete priority to distribute them under the Creative Commons license. Please remove deletion templates immediately. Thank you for your time. --Narek75 (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

When you uploaded those files, you claimed that you personally created all of them. Now you acknowledge that some of them were not created by you, which means the information on at least some of the file descriptions is not truthful. The deletion templates should not be removed until this discussion is closed, and the discussion definitely cannot be closed with a decision to keep the files as long as we know that at least some undefined subset of the file descriptions are not truthful. For content created by third parties, verified permission statements will be required. Also, even if you do narrow down the set of files you claim to have created yourself, please understand that simply taking your word for it becomes increasingly difficult given the history above. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

LX, OK, first sorry for the belated response. What we have above (deleted pictures in the past), was all because of my unawareness and lack of knowledge on how Commons works. Some of the pictures I've uploaded (mostly about agriculture) were taken from my workplace archives with a full permission of public relations department (I can even send you a written statement with chief PR specialist that I have 100% control of them). The pictures you guys are trying to delete were all given to me by this person's family members and friends (I also happened to be a friend of his). There has been an oral agreement to upload them as a non-copyrighted media. After some time you can see that some of these pictures were heavily featured in Armenian news outlets. All I'm saying is that this pictures in fact belong to me and my friends and we kindly decided to distribute them as free media. Please tell me what the issue here is and what solutions could we come up with. --Narek75 (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Here, you're saying that at least some of the photos are works by other, unnamed authors, and if I understand you correctly, you're saying that they are not protected by copyright (which would be a new claim). On the file description pages, you still state that the photos are all your own works (meaning works created by you), that you are the author (meaning the photographer), and that you are the copyright holder (meaning you either created them, had them created for you by an employee or similar, or had the copyright transferred to you in writing), and that you've chosen as the copyright holder to publish them under a specific copyright license.
I can't make any promises on behalf of whoever decides the outcome of this discussion, but I think for anything but deletion to be even remotely realistic, the discrepancies between what you've said above and the information on the file description pages would have to be sorted out. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sadly enough you've also deleted the ones, the were created by me alone. Can I please at least upload those ? --Narek75 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted: Family members rarely have the right to freely license such images -- that right is almost always held by the photographers. In each case, in order to restore the images, we will need a free license from the actual photographer using the procedure at OTRS, or if others have the right to license the images, a free license from the other person together with a copy of the written agreement with the actual photographer which allows the person to license them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 4 December 2016 (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 Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Not found at URL. Anyway Copyright © 2010 Encyclopedia. All Rights Reserved.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel Sorry, probably wrong website, Armenian encyclopedias (including Soviet-Armenian) are released to public domain under Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0. Let me change the source real quick, and let me know if it's OK. --Narek75 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Just like this one for example. --Narek75 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Narek75: There's a problem if you don't know where your images come from! Please provide a link to Voskeporik Armenian Encyclopedia, please. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Patrick Rogel, I can't seem to find anything valuable about Voskeporik, unlike the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, Voskeporik was not scanned in Wikiquote. --Narek75 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll try searching again. --Narek75 (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination; no source provided by Narek75 to back up claims since April. --Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2019 (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 Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Different resolutions, made using more than 30 different camera types, uploaded by user with long history of blatant copyvios.

Komarof (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  •  Delete Since there's a complaint on the Administrators Noticeboard about the argument from number of cameras, let's make it clearer.
File:Նուռ - Noor (Pomegranate).jpg (2005) taken with a Nikon D70, soon after it was released. It was a $1000 new, and a sign of someone who is using a cutting edge DSLR camera.
File:Wine and Cheese 6995 (2008).jpg (2008) taken with a Nikon D700, six months after it was released. This is a nice and very expensive camera, $3000 new, with no lens.
File:Students Studying at the Agribusiness Teaching Center (ATC).JPG (2012) taken with a Nikon D200. This was a decent camera... in 2005. It is a big step down from the D700.
File:Georgian Students with the Georgian Flag.jpg (November 7th 2012) taken with a Nikon D300. This is a strict upgrade from the D200, but it's weird upgrading to a D300 when the D300S was released in 2009, and the D300 is incrementally better than the D200.
File:ICARE Student holding a Red Diploma.jpg (November 7th 2012) taken with a Nikon D3100. It's slightly lighter, with more megapixels and has video, compared to the Nikon D300, but the D300 is a professional camera and produces better pictures and is compatible with older Nikon lenses, where the D3100 is the baseline entry level camera and is deliberately feature-poor to encourage people to upgrade. It's not even the newest entry level model; the D3200 was released earlier that year.
File:Deer from Syunik, Armenia.jpg (November 30th, 2012) taken with a Nikon COOLPIX S9100. It was $325 in 2011, and it's cheap and light. I would be surprised to see someone who used a new D700 carrying around this thing.
File:Tarverdyan VS Yirikian.jpg (January 29th, 2013) taken with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II; no longer new, but still $2000. Also, lenses are expensive, meaning switching from Nikon to Canon is probably deeply expensive.
Just looking at the Nikons out of that list, 4 different cameras were used in 2012. The D700 is a serious camera, especially new. It should have lasted four years; it's built like a tank with a magnesium alloy frame and weather sealing. If someone had managed 150K, 200K shots in that time period, the shutter might have needed replacing for $200-$300. Particularly, you're shooting with D200 in 2012, upgrade to a D300 in that year, then sidegrade to a D3100 and blow money on a point and shoot, and then in January drop $2000 on a Canon DSLR? Add in all the other cameras there, of little consistency; it's certainly very suspicious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your incredibly professional and detailed analysis of the situation. However, there's probably no need to break a fly on a wheel here; it would be enough to look at the uploader's talk page and see the wide variety of photographers' names in the metadata of previously deleted images, uploaded as 'own works'. I've included only the most dubious cases here, but many similar ones still remain. Komarof (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete - this user has clearly uploaded many photos by others as "own work"; I just submitted another DR. How many others are out there? We should ask them to clean this up before they upload any more. Consigned (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Compelling evidence by Prosfilaes. --Yann (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files uploaded by Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Possible copyvio. File:ATC Graduation 2012.JPG EXIF says Copyright Holder "SERJ" unlike most of this user's uploads, likely not their own work. File:ATC Graduates Class of 2013.jpg EXIF says Author "AV0AVOO", uses a PENTAX K-5 (not otherwise used by this user), and a smaller version can be found on Tineye from 2014, before upload here.

Consigned (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Narek75 (talk · contribs)

Dubious PD rationale, this is not an official state document.

Consigned (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Marc Bouwer Fall 2004 Runway at New York Fashion Week.jpg

questionable own work - if the uploader really is the well-known fashion photographer indicated in the metadata, VRT permission is needed Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have no objection to the photo deletion, It was intended as a test upload to replace the unrelated photo of Marilyn Monroe. However, I would like to revert to the last edit which corrected the background of the dress. It is cited that the dress was a runway piece, and there is no proper documentation that the designer used Marilyn as an inspiration. I see that if I revert, the runway pic is still on the page, what is the best way to resolve? Cryptoline (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:La Shawn Ford.jpg

The resolution on this image incredibly low and there are numerous, other photos on Wikimedia Commons that show LaShawn Ford and more that can be found on Paul Goyette's Flickr. Mpen320 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:La Shawn Ford 2019 Chicago mayoral forum December 2018.jpg

The resolution on this image incredibly low and there are numerous, other photos on Wikimedia Commons that show LaShawn Ford and more that can be found on Paul Goyette's Flickr. Mpen320 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP; this photo was previously used in numerous articles, having for years been the best available commons illustration of Ford on Commons. Therefore, deleting this would corrupt the page histories of those articles SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Images on Wikimedia Commons are meant to educate. There is no educational value to this image. If this image were provided to a search and rescue team, he'd be a goner. We have an entire tag: subst:delete|reason=Low resolution/quality for these situations that I regret only learning about now. Also, we delete copyrighted images and that does not destroy page history, so why would this?-- Mpen320 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

File:2019 Chicago mayoral forum December 2018 (1).jpg

The resolution on this image incredibly low and there are numerous, other photos on Wikimedia Commons that show the subjects. There is also the photo from which this was cropped. There is not a value add to retaining this image. Mpen320 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The existence "other photos" of a subject is not a standard reason for deletion. If I recall, this image was previously used on Wikipedia; and if so, its deletion would diminish the page history of any articles it appeared in. SecretName101 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
The reason for the deletion is that this the Chicago mayoral forum equivalent of Emil Wakim's unusable photo that is no longer used on his page and exists on Wikimedia Commons as an example of an unusable photo. The fact I mention there are other photos is to explicitly preempt your point that this would somehow diminish page histories, which is untrue. This image serves no education purpose and makes it eligible for deletion.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
After some searching, I'd like to elaborate my position is best phrased as Per Commons:Project_scope#Scope_part_1:_Files, every file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. This extracted image serves no such purpose as the subjects are shot in such a low resolution as to make them too difficult to identify.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@Mpen320 STRONG disagree. There is no alternative public domain photo depicting just these three particular individuals (each notable) debating each other. There is very much a realistic use for an educational purpose. SecretName101 (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I would say File:2019 Chicago mayoral forum December 2018 (a).jpg does what you are describing adequately without a poor resolution cropping. There is no debate in this photo as the other photo demonstrates it is Willie Wilson speaking.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
It does not. It includes a much broader number of candidates. Also, the rationale you are using is not supported anyways by the existence of other photos that can serve the same educational purpose. It is for photos that cannot reasonably serve an educational purpose. That rationale does not apply to this photo, plain and simple. SecretName101 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

File:C'est un rêve-All of me - chanson - 1 voix et piano - musique de Seymour Simons et Gerald Marks ; paroles de Seymour Simons et Gerald Marks ; Jean Sareil - btv1b107811570 (1 of 4).jpg

This file comes from Gallica along with others showing sheet music of the song "All of me". The files were presumably uploaded automatically. However, looking at the dates of those involved in the song, it is likely to be protected by copyright.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

File:MOLLERK26.jpg

Copyright violation. Found elsewhere on the web Skivsamlare (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Corncheese pizza.jpg

Incredibly low quality, OOS. JayCubby (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Dieter Rudolph, Skulptur 1969.jpg

Die Seite wurde von mir irrtümlich hochgeladen. Der Bildhauer der Skulptur ist nicht Dieter Rudolph sondern Arnold Schamretta (hat keinen WP Eintrag) Rogald (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:SINAMOS Logo Peru.svg

El logo es obra de w:Jesús Ruiz Durand, nacido en 1970 y aún vivo. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

So does any of this violate the Peruvian copyright law as stated on the file? NorthTension (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
La imagen tiene copyright. El autor sigue vivo. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes but "This work was not credited or nor registered its name in the National Copyright Registry 15 years after its publication".
Is this incorrect? Can you give me something to disprove this. NorthTension (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Así no funciona. Tú debes probar que no estaba registrado, porque ante la duda no deberíamos suponer lo contrario. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

File:26 Baku Commissars Memorial, 1980.jpg

Copvio. Author of the photo is Oleg Litvin (Q32406050) (d. 2017). Yousiphh (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Sport car in Baku - 1960.jpg

Copvio. Author and owner of this photo is Levan Taktakishvili (Q12866199) (d. 2005). Yousiphh (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Luis Felipe Gutierrez Gamez.jpg

Fake information Guanajuatoguanajuato (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree Guanajuatoguanajuato (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Favor de checar esta información, es falsa. Esta persona no es política ni empresaria. Guanajuatoguanajuato (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Esta persona no tiene ninguna presencia en internet que acredite que es un 'político prestigiado' o siquiera una figura pública. He realizado búsquedas exhaustivas y no existe registro de ella en Google, hemerotecas, ni portales oficiales. Por lo tanto, la descripción del archivo es falsa y no verificable. Guanajuatoguanajuato (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)