Commons:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Shortcuts: COM:ATA • COM:ARGUMENTS

?
This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process.
The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines
This page in a nutshell:
  • Remember that deletion discussions are not decided through head count
  • Explain why a file does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies
  • Try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions and avoid one-liners or simple links
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided–or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that would be "keep", "delete", or some other objective. Some of the infirm arguments covered are those that are irrelevant or at best side issues, do not address the merits of the reason to keep or delete, are based on anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more–and almost all share the trait of not being based upon the issues listed at Commons:Deletion policy. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Commons policies and guidelines, such as COM:L, COM:DW, COM:PS and COM:PCP. The arguments covered on this page are far from exhaustive. If an argument you were planning on using is listed here, you might want to reconsider using it. However, just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid.

Remember that a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", may still contain the germ of a valid point. For example, if a person argues that an image is interesting, and in making that point, cites evidence that could also be used to support a determination of the file being in scope, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because COM:INTERESTING is a section in this essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. (See also the section #Just pointing at a policy or guideline below.)

While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as undeletion requests.

Arguments without arguments

This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise do not point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever.

Just a vote

Unlike this ballot box, deletion discussions are not used for general voting.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As COM:Deletion requests#Overview states, "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of their ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept." Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" or "Speedy keep" or even "Weak keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the file should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on cogent reasons.

Per nominator/X

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Delete per nom. Trustfull (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep as per User:IvanIdea's statement. Sup (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that the deletion discussion is designed to solicit discussion, not votes (see also § Just a vote). Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.

If the rationale provided in a comment includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of that argument may be sufficient. (Example: "Delete per nom. I find their argument that such and such policy is not met compelling") Experienced users and administrators may also use the "per nom" comment to support the rationale of less experienced users or temporary accounts.

Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a "I don't like it" or "I like it" position.

Per majority

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep per everyone else. JeepersKeepers (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Most people are saying it should be deleted, and it looks like that is what will happen. JeepersDeleters (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

All participants of deletion discussions are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.

It is also not uncommon for attitudes to shift during a deletion discussion. When it seems after just a few days that it'll surely go one way, often one single statement can turn the tide. For example, during a deletion request of a suspected copyright violation, the original author could have been contacted, leading the file to be released under a free license.

Support for file (or lack thereof)

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep There are more "keeps" than "deletes" OutVoted (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete 25 people want to have this file deleted. DownTheWell (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete The only people voting "keep" are spammers IDontLikeSpam (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not about voting. The outcome of discussions is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. If you comment on the basis of the numbers already seen as in the above examples, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. And drawing others to cast such votes may be canvassing.

Many discussions in the past have had an outcome that contradicts the numbers, and many will in the future. It is possible for a deletion discussion that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa) if that single argument is really good and the remainder are either just votes or are erroneous. However, community consensus is frequently taken into consideration when closing the discussion of a file's deletion, and although consensus is not identical to voting, indication of consensus as demonstrated by a large proportion of well-argued votes on one side or the other of a discussion is likely to factor heavily in the final decision (the key word here is "well-argued").

Internal factors unrelated to the discussion

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep The image is viewed by over 10,000 people daily. ViewMagnet (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Literally no one watches or uses this file. If it gets deleted, nothing of value will be lost. ViewMagnate (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep The file passed license review, so it's not a copyright violation. ReviewersAreAlwaysRight (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep The Volunteer Response Team has confirmed that the file is under a free license. VRT-positive (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep This is a featured image! Obviously it follows the guidelines, why else would it be featured? FeaturePerfect (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Not a featured image, so it's likely a violation. NoProofProvided (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The popularity of the file does not indicate its copyright status, educational usefulness and adherence to other policies and guidelines.

While license reviews are a good way to weed out blatant copyright violations (such as files published under an incompatible license), they are not always reliable. Reviewing admins may fail to see specific nuances, such as de minimis, threshold of originality or fan art guidelines. Certain license reviews, such as that of Flickr files, are done automatically by bots, who only look at the license. Due to this, bot-reviewed files are highly susceptible to license laundering.

Even if the license review is confirmed to be valid, the image may still be eligible for deletion for non-copyright reasons, such as project scope and personality rights. The same applies to files with licenses verified by the Volunteer Response Team, which while being safe to keep on copyright grounds, may still be a violation of other policies and guidelines.

Unlike deletion discussions, featured image nominations are determined by voting. The voters usually discuss the quality merits of the file or just leave a vote without any arguments (things that would've been considered erroneous in deletion discussions). Sometimes, a featured image may get nominated without users looking at more nuanced guidelines, which can lead in the image getting exposed later after being featured.

External support/pressure

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep There is a huge crowd rooting for this file to be kept. PetitionDrive (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep The cause for keeping this has gone viral. YouTubeDramarama (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep The file is highly regarded by multiple news outlets as one of the most important photographs of that decade. ChronicallyRegardedIndividual (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep This nomination has made the news and been heavily criticized. It would be an embarrassment for Commons to delete the file. PublicAppeal (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Wikimedia Commons is all on the news because of this file and people are MAD. We should delete it to avoid damaging the company's reputation. PublicConceal (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete The Russian Government stated that Commons is going to get blocked in Russia if the file won't get deleted. TheyllDoItAnyway (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Outside reactions to a Wikimedia Commons file getting nominated for deletion are usually highly emotional (both supportive and opposing) with little thought put into the guidelines that led to the file being nominated. Similarly, a file existing on Commons at all may attract both positive and negative attention, with the arguments on both sides usually not being based on the policies and guidelines of Commons.

Such external arguments should be discarded unless they criticize the file based on the merits of Commons, such as a news outlet exposing a copyright violation, verifying the license or contacting the person on the nominated photograph to ensure their consent.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

Can you tell if the protester wants to keep or delete the file?

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it often does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that a file should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above (see #Just a vote), deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Although certain guidelines, such as COM:PCP, are rather self-explanatory, other have more complex rules and require more reasoning, such as COM:TOO, which can be used to imply both keep and delete votes. When citing the latter types of guidelines, consider writing a more detailed summary, such as:

 Keep per COM:FAN: the character designs are original and while the image does use a specific artstyle, artstyles can't be copyrighted.

 Delete per COM:FAN: artwork is too close to an official poster. While it's not a carbon copy, there is significant doubt about the copyright status of the file, making it eligible for deletion per COM:PCP.

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. COM:ILIKEIT or COM:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

Begging for mercy/deletion

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep I worked so hard on this fan art. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? DoNotHurtMe (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep You would be doing me a big favor if you changed your "deletes" to "keeps" Mindchanger (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete My boss said that if this file is to be deleted, I receive a pay raise! BadFaithConnoisseur (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

You should also make yourself familiar with Commons's canvassing guidelines before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.

General policy misconceptions

Arguments with no policy basis

The Azure Window no longer looks like this. Still, it is important to preserve historical views of subjects.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

This section covers deletion arguments that are based on misunderstanding why we delete files. Various policies are applied to files uploaded to Commons, but most policy violations either don't require deletion or can be easily fixed.

Examples:

So add {{Trademarked}}.

  •  Delete The filename is wrong! Renamer (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

So request a file move.

So edit the description. Change the category. Fix these easily fixable mistakes.

  •  Delete The building/person/ship no longer looks like this. AntiHistorian (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This is their old logo. AntiHis-two-rian (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

So you can edit to say so, but we aren't trying to erase history.

  •  Delete Even though you see it all over the place, this symbol/flag doesn't have official status. AdolfStickler (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep I've seen one place this symbol/flag was used on a poster. BenitoInclusini (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's widely used in the real world, and there are no rights issues, it's reasonable to keep on Commons regardless of being unofficial. But the word "widely" is part of that criterion.

Arguments based on policies of Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep I was just being bold per WP:BOLD BoldEagle (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Image wasn't mentioned by any reliable source, delete per WP:N Not Ability (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

While a large chunk of Wikipedia's policies have similar or even identical objectives, it is also not uncommon to see policies that are substantially different from each other. For example, WP:BOLD and COM:BOLD are polar opposites. The same rule applies to other Wikimedia projects, such as Wiktionary and Wikidata.

While Wikipedia has a notability guideline, it is not to be confused with the project scope of Commons (see #Notability and encyclopedism as scope).

Personal point of view

This section covers deletion arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or guidelines.

I like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

  •  Keep: The Angry Young Popes are the best rock band in the world right now. SuperPopeFan (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep: I purchased Acme's products and they are awesome. BugsBunny (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons contributors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete a file or other content.

I don't like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the file does not adhere to the project scope. Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also: #Just pointing at a policy or guideline.)

They don't like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep: It would be censorship to delete this. For We Are Many (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. The Fooians don't want anyone to know this, we shouldn't bow to Fooian interests. AntiFooian (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. We can't get rid of an image just because it makes people uncomfortable. PoliticallyIncorrectHero (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep. Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. OccupyBaz (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

And on the converse of that converse (see I don't like it, directly above), while some editors may feel that deleting a file would be playing into the hands of a certain group, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be kept. Commons is not censored, but this fact does not supersede its guidelines on licensing, project scope, photographs of identifiable people, etc. In addition, if such an argument is used against the nominator specifically, it constitutes a failure to assume the nominator's good faith and if severe enough may constitute a personal attack.

It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate a file for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reputable claims and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be easy to refute.

It's interesting/Who cares

Who cares about this? Well, over 3 billion people worldwide do.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Commons contributors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and the visitors who watch the images include everyone on the planet. Any file portraying a certain subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual contributor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete a file.

See also #I like it and #I don't like it above.

It's harmful/harmless

Bomb recipe. Pretty obvious use cases, isn't it?

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep Why delete this, it is not harming anyone. Hippocrates2 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This image is very harmful to many people. Get rid of this now! BiographyPolice (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No content on Commons is censored. Just because a file does not directly hurt anyone does not mean the file should be kept. For example, a low quality photograph of an unidentified bird is still considered out of project scope, regardless of if it's harmful or not. Conversely, photographs of identifiable people could potentially be used in harmful or derogatory ways, but that does not mean the images should be deleted, provided the derogatory context was not the main subject of the photograph. Even deliberately offensive files, such as hate symbols, are usually kept if they are uploaded and used with an educational motive.

As for files that do not conform to our basic tenets, keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here.

It's funny

The funniest image on Wikimedia Commons, according to Rick and Morty fans

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Commons is not a repository of humor. Files cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor are they outright disqualified because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective nature of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an image repository where the merits of an image are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean humorous media has no place on Commons, as the "Humor" category shows. Files should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as [TODO: GUIDELINE EXAMPLES] – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor.

It looks good/bad

Even though View from the Window at Le Gras, the oldest surviving photograph, is low quality, that does not undermine its significant historical value.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

While project scope specifically outlines images that are of low quality, they should still be kept provided they cannot be replaced by another freely licensed image. Conversely, even high quality images may be deleted, for example if they are found to be copyright violations.

Seemingly a copyright violation, this image of Gumball Watterson is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 because it was officially uploaded to Scratch, which mandated the license in their TOS.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Wikimedia Commons is first and foremost a repository of freely-licensed or out of copyright images, hence why copyright violations are treated very seriously. However, calling a file a violation should almost always be done with some sort of proof such as a link, provided the proof wasn't mentioned by the user who requested deletion. Similarly to #Just pointing at a policy or guideline, consider writing a more detailed summary.

The logo for Cyberpunk 2077 was denied copyright registration by the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office due to it not surpassing the threshold of originality.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Logos of companies are often ineligible for copyright protection due to being below the threshold of originality (TOO). However, simply assuming that a logo is public domain or a violation should never be done, since TOO is a very nuanced topic subjected to various country laws. This line of thinking is exacerbated by the template {{Logo}} used as a generic speedy deletion template.

For more information on what logos are and aren't eligible for copyright protection, see Commons:Threshold of originality.

It's fair use

Non-free files, such as most movie posters, should be posted locally on other Wikimedia projects.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep This photograph is fair use, because it illustrates the singer on his Wikipedia article and I couldn't find any free alternative. NotFair (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Wikipedia has a lower resolution version of this movie poster locally uploaded, this means I can upload the full resolution version here in Commons. EveryFileIsFreeOnWikipedia (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use of non-free files (such as logos, covers, screenshots, or reproductions of other copyrighted works). Such images may, however, be submitted to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia or Wiktionary, if it allows fair use. Note that files uploaded locally to another project can be used only locally at that project. For information on which Wikimedia projects allow fair use, see Meta:Non-free content.

It's "free"

While Fortnite can be downloaded and played for free, using its engine or assets without permission from Epic Games can get you into legal trouble (logo is not protected per COM:TOO US).

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep Fortnite is a free game, so the screenshots are allowed on Commons. FreeGuy (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep This image is readily available on most websites and in search results, obviously it's free ItsNotAboutTheMoney (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The English word "free" can mean either "for zero price" (like beer being given away for free) or "with few or no restrictions" (like a free license for a file). Wikimedia Commons only allows free content in its second sense, that is content with no restriction on its reusage and modification. The "free" in "free content" means the freedom of use, not the price; just because the content is available at no cost does not mean it is not protected by copyright.

Free by association

Although works by the US government are generally in the public domain, make sure first that the work is not copyrighted and reprinted.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep – This image came from a U.S. Government website, which puts all work out in the public domain, and therefore it's free. AmericanImagesHeckYeah (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Many national and subnational governments have copyright clauses that put work performed by their own employees while performing a work function into the public domain. (Other governments do nothing of the sort, or place only texts of laws, statutes and judicial decisions in the public domain.) Certain government websites also license its media under a Creative Commons license. Thus, there are many free images available from government sources. Editors often do not realize, however, that this does not mean that any media that appears on a government website is in the public domain. Sometimes, the government will publish or republish copyrighted work on their websites or in publications, but this does not change the copyright of the original work. Also, for some governments, government works created by contractors do not have the same status as works created by employees. In these cases, there will often (but not always) be a credit indicating who the original copyright holder is. When making this argument, make sure first that the content really is in the public domain, and do not just assume it. This case can also apply to any website that nominally allows its own work to be put into the public domain, but which may also republish others' work.

It's old

Worldwide map of the copyright term length

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep This file is older than my grandma, the copyright must have expired. 40YearOldGrandma (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep This photo was taken like a hundred years ago, obviously it's public domain. ItsBeenSoLong (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The lack of copyright of a file is not guaranteed based simply on its age. Different countries have different copyright terms; for example, in most European countries, the copyright of a work expires 70 years after the author's death, while for works published prior to 1978, the U.S. places the expiration date 95 years after publication. This means that a work released in 1930 by a European artist would be public domain in the US by 2026, but could still be copyrighted in Europe if the artist in question died after 1955. Certain countries implement perpetual (i.e. indefinite) copyright on government works. Since Wikimedia Commons requires the files to be public domain in both the source country and the United States, one must consider the source country's copyright rules.

For more information about the copyright rules in different countries, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory.

Unsupported Creative Commons licenses

A helpful chart: only the licenses in the top green portion are allowed.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

While a large chunk of Wikimedia Commons content is licensed under Creative Commons licenses, not all of them are allowed. Wikimedia Commons aims to be a repository of free content, that is content with no restriction on its reusage and modification. Since Creative Commons licenses such as CC BY-NC and CC BY-ND restrict such practices, they are considered non-free and files under these licenses cannot be uploaded to Commons. Specifically, any file under a Creative Commons license that contains either "NC" or "ND" is not allowed.

For more information about why such licenses are not allowed, see Commons:Licensing/Justifications. For more information on acceptable licenses in general, see Commons:Licensing.

The file is no longer available under Creative Commons

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Delete The creator changed the license to non-commercial, so now it's not fit for Commons. ItsOver (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses are strictly irrevocable. Once the owner has stated that the file is available under a Creative Commons license, the license's terms will be valid until the file's copyright expires, even if the statement was retracted. If the license was verified to be valid (either via an archive of the license release statement or a license review from Commons admins) the file should be kept.

Assertion of US copyright to content from other countries

While you cannot upload original comics of Nero, you can upload images of his statue as it allowed per COM:FOP Belgium.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Examples

  •  Keep This logo of UK Boxers is public domain, because a similar US Fighters logo is considered below threshold of originality. LogoRhythm (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Burj Khalifa can be freely photographed because of the freedom of panorama law under Section 120a of the U.S. Copyright Act. FOP-tographer (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Christ the Redeemer is a statue, and statues are not covered by the US Freedom of Panorama law. FOP-two-grapher (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Any file hosted on Commons must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and the law of the source country, if different. However, there are exceptions: the current policy on Commons is to accept photos of artwork and sculptures that are covered by freedom of panorama only in their source country; Commons also allows mechanical reproductions of public domain art.

Open source programs with non-free assets

The source code for the 1993 video game Doom has been released under the GPLv3 free license, however the game's assets (textures, sounds, levels) are still copyrighted.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep Doom (1993) is open source, so the screenshots adhere to Commons licensing rules. Based and FOSS-pilled (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons allows screenshots of open source programs and games, provided their assets are also licensed under an open license (either the same license as the whole project or a separate Commons-compatible license).

It can be used to illustrate X

A deliberately out of focus photograph. Can yours be more educationally useful? Probably not.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep Don't delete this image! Yes, it is low quality, but it can be used to illustrate the article about low quality images! GraphicsDontMatter (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

A media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons. The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article about X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph.

For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Common mistakes in photography" does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs. The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images.

Not in use

Wikimedia Commons has over 140 million files: inevitably some won't be used in any Wikimedia projects, others will be used multiple times.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Delete File is not in use, therefore out of scope YoureFired (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Files currently in use in at least one Wikimedia project are automatically considered to be in project scope, having clear educational value. However, simply not being used on any project is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikimedia Commons has over 140 million files, obviously not every single one is going to be utilized, especially considering the strict content requirements for certain projects, such as the notability guideline on Wikipedia.

If the file is realistically useful for an educational purpose, even if it's currently not used in any Wikimedia projects, it should be kept, provided it abides by other guidelines, such as copyright and personality rights.

Notability and encyclopedism as scope

While this rock probably isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean that the image is out of scope.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep This screenshot of the news article is not only freely licensed, but also encyclopedic! Encyclophiliac (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Image wasn't mentioned by any reliable source, therefore it's not notable and out of scope. Notabiliac (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Notability and encyclopedism, while welcomed, is not the main factor of the files being in project scope or not. Certain topics that are considered not notable for Wikipedia standards can still be illustrated by numerous images, because educational content is not limited to media about objects or subjects mentioned by reliable sources.

Conversely, not all encyclopedic content is in scope. Commons is first and foremost a media repository, and files that contain nothing educational other than raw text are considered out of scope. However, there are other Wikimedia projects that allow raw text content, such as Wikipedia for encyclopedic articles, Wiktionary for word definitions or Wikiquote for quotations.

It's porn

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

While nudity and pornography are highly contentious topics, Commons is not censored and files that depict such material are allowed, provided they follow other guidelines and fall within the project scope. For more information, see COM:Nudity.

But Commons is not censored!

Does Commons need more photos of big cocks?

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

The "Commons is not censored" guideline does not supersede other policies, such as the project scope. Files of low resolution or poor quality which provide little descriptive information of a subject we already have files of are of limited value and are likely eligible for deletion. For more information, see COM:Nudity.

Nudity is not inherently sexual

A nude statue of David. He doesn't seem to mind.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Delete This photo literally features a naked child, which means it's illegal and should be deleted DontThinkOfTheChildren (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Although nudity is commonly associated with most sexual activities and contexts, the mere presence of nudity does not necessarily imply such a context (see DR). The argument is often erroneously used in deletion requests for images in the Nude children and Naturism categories.

Arguments from uploader

From the uploader who tries to defend/delete a file

I am the owner

Despite David Slater's claims of ownership and copyright, this monkey selfie is ineligible for copyright protection due to it being taken by an animal.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep I am the original creator of this image and I hereby declare it free to use BobRoss1942 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep On behalf of Acme, Inc. I, the owner of the company, grant the use of this file under [insert license here] AcmeCEOreal (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete I, the author, request immediate deletion of this file, because it violates my copyright. EvilBobRoss1889 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Due to the pseudonymous nature of user accounts, anyone can call themselves anything. Someone's claim to be a CEO of a company or the original author of the file is going to be highly contested, even if their username mimics the name of the copyright holder. If the uploader wants to secure the file and is actually the copyright owner, they must send a permission email to the Wikimedia Commons VRT team following instructions at COM:VRT.

I received permission

Bill Gates in 2011, co-founder of Microsoft and likely not your dad

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep I received a letter from Warner Bros. that I can freely upload their full films here WarnerLawyer (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep My dad works at Microsoft, he says that the image is free to use IndustryPlant (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Just like the ownership arguments above, anyone can claim to have permission to upload a file. The person/company who owns the content should be contacted and told to send a permission email to the Wikimedia Commons VRT team following instructions at COM:VRT.

I don't want this file on Commons anymore

Unfortunately for Streisand, not only did her wishes not come true, her attempt to hide the information might have achieved an opposite effect.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Delete I uploaded this file a long time ago, now I want it deleted. ChangedMyMind (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete I created and uploaded this file under a Creative Commons license, but now I don't want this file here anymore. SimplyIrrevocable (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This is literally my house! Who cares if it's educational, delete this immediately! BarbraStreisand (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

All uploads to Commons must comply with our licensing policy, which requires all files to be licensed under a "free" license that is perpetual and irrevocable. We do understand that people make mistakes, change their mind, or for other personal reasons desire to have their contributions deleted, but we are under no legal obligation to delete it as the licenses are irrevocable. (See also: #The file is no longer available under Creative Commons)

Commons offers a "period of grace" to uploaders who want their previously uploaded files removed. Within the first week of publishing, the uploader may request speedy deletion of their unused files using the template {{G7}}. However, for files which are in use, or have passed the seven-day period, these files should undergo regular deletion nomination. It will determine whether or not the image adheres to the Wikimedia Commons guidelines, and whether it qualifies for a courtesy deletion.

While files that were uploaded as insignificant personal photos are likely to be qualified for deletion, other files that have clear educational use and no copyright problems are going to be kept, regardless of the uploader wanting the image to be on the website or not.

I took the photo

If this statue wasn't public domain, the photographer's rights to the photo would not have held up any better than the statue in question.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

  •  Keep It's my own photo; look at the metadata, you can see my name. Mr. My Name (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep What do you mean "copyright violation"? I took the photo and I own it! AndThatsAFact (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Similarly to the "I am the owner" argument, the user who claims to have taken the photograph has to verify his ownership. Unlike the aforementioned argument, even if the photograph will be verified to have been taken by the uploader, it could still be deleted if the photograph in question is either out of scope or a derivative work of copyrighted material, such as a photo of a statue or building taken in a country where freedom of panorama laws either don't exist or don't cover the type of work in question (for example, FOP in the United States only covers buildings).

For more information, see Commons:But it's my own work!

Meta-reasoning

Arguments to the person/Ad hominem

Deletion discussions are focused on the nominated file, not on someone's mother.
See also: W:Ad hominem.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

In most Wikimedia contexts, ad hominem arguments are inappropriate. However, Commons' Precautionary principle requires that we delete files where there is significant doubt about the file being free, and often that is based on what we know about the creator, the uploader, and occasionally even the person who nominated the file for deletion. These are only rarely determining factors, but they are often contributing factors.

Examples of inappropriate arguments:

  •  Keep Creator has a history of uploading non-violating files, therefore this one must also be clean of any violation and should be kept. BrandLoyalty (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Uploader has only uploaded this image and nothing else, obviously this is just vandalism. OneHitHater (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of files that have been kept and therefore made poor choices. BadNom (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Creator has previously uploaded many files that have been deleted, therefore this one should be deleted. BadCreator (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep, nominator is a banned user trying to destroy Commons. Tenacious Defender (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Politically motivated nomination. POVPusher (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Creator has been blocked indefinitely from Commons. And even though this image was uploaded before their block, even so! Indefinite Discriminator (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Examples of appropriate arguments that still involve an ad hominem aspect:

  •  Keep Creator has a history of uploading non-violating files, so we should probably extend an assumption of good faith that they really did have access to the backstage at a concert. BrandLoyalty (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Uploader has only uploaded this image of a building and nothing else. The image can be found elsewhere on the Internet, including on the official site of the organization whose building it is. They claim copyright. Yes, it is possible that the organization took the image from Commons, but so many new users don't understand the meaning of "own work" (or don't care) that we probably should delete this to be safe. OneHitHater (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Nominator has previously nominated a lot of files that have been kept, and few that have been deleted; the claims have been very similar to the one here, and have consistently failed to pan out, so I doubt their case here. BadNom (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Creator has previously uploaded many similar files that have been consistently deleted. What, if anything, is different about this one? BadCreator (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep nominator is clearly banned user FOO, I'll bring this to COM:ANB. Tenacious Defender (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep nominator has started a series of DRs, on a variety of grounds, that amount to trying to get every single image of [SUBJECT] deleted from Commons. Whitewash (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Politically motivated nomination: you may not like the fact that in your country Party A provides free licenses for its campaign materials an Party B does not, but that does not mean there is a bias on Commons on hosting Party A's materials and not Party B's. POVPusher (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Creator has been blocked indefinitely from Commons. The block was over faked images, and there is no particular reason to think this one is any more legitimate. Indefinite Discriminator (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

A deletion discussion is about the file in question itself. Though the suitability of other related files may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other files, the debate is not primarily about the creator or any other contributors, nor about the nominator, and even more seldom about others who have commented on the deletion discussion. Files are to be judged on their own merits and not those of its contributors or detractors. Even well-respected contributors sometimes upload files that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have uploaded many unworthy files still have the potential to contribute good media and have made many really good contributions.

However, in contrast to a Wikipedia article, most files on Commons are inherently the work of a single individual. Also, copyright issues play a far larger role on Commons than they do for most of our sister projects. For copyright, in particular, it may matter enormously who someone is. In most circumstances, if you upload a photo you took, and you offer a particular free license, that suffices to grant that license. If someone else does the same thing with that same photo, the license is not valid, because they did not own the copyright. As a result, some issues about who took certain actions, and even about their character, may be legitimate arguments in deletion discussions. When that arises, minimize any personal aspersions, and be overt about the relevance to the deletion discussion.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikimedia Commons is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the website by continually uploading files that get deleted or continually nominating good files for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help. Note that discussing the creator's / uploader's legitimacy, motivations and claims is not considered an argument to the person, as it primarily focuses on the file validity.

Repeated nominations

Is it that day again?

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep Didn't we argue all this last month? DejaVu (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Speedy keep Files survived previous deletion discussion and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again. Yawner (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete It's already been nominated a bunch of times, obviously people want it deleted. TryAgain (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Conversely it is reasonable to ask:

  •  Comment What is different now than when this was nominated on the same grounds a month ago and kept? Perplexed (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

If a file has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will vote "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because the file failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. A file that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If a file is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Commons, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.

Repeated nominations for deletion do not necessarily indicate that the file is problematic. No extra weight is given to the rationales offered by nominators over rationales offered, whether for or against deletion, by other discussion participants. A file's survival of multiple deletion requests indicates that the reasons given by the nominators, along with those given by others in favor of deletion, repeatedly didn't prevail over the arguments given by those who were opposed.

Blackmail

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep If we don't keep this why should I even contribute at all? It stays or I go (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This is the last straw. If we keep this Commons isn't worth my time any more. NoMoreCommons (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Nobody will upload new images if we delete this. TheWastedFuture (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete A media pundit criticized Commons for having these kind of files. ShouldBeAshamed (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete I've always donated to the Wikimedia Foundation, but if it becomes a platform for these kinds of views, I'll stop! AndYoullRegretIt (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Editors sometimes issue ultimatums to get their way, threatening to quit uploading. Or they will claim that current or future contributors will be driven off by the wrong outcome. Similarly, someone's desired outcome is tied to some outside criticism of Wikimedia Commons. It may be valid to argue that a decision will move Commons closer to, or away from, what Commons is not but a relevant argument should focus on the merits of the file.

Citing greater problems

We live in a society where people use deletion discussions to argue about the state of Commons instead of talking about the file itself.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

  •  Keep The fact that this is marked for deletion while File:Example.png isn't says a lot about the state of this website. We Live In A Society (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep This discussion is a prime example of the inherent fooism and barism of online communities. Let's not reinforce such things. InternetJusticePolice (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Keep Of course any male contributors (84%!) don't think this is in scope, they just can't see female perspectives. NeitherCanI (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete This image has long been an insult to Commons and our standards. ImOffended (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete Let's rid this site of Foo-political bias. Bar Politics Fan (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons and related projects have a lot of problems, both proven and alleged, both big and small. But a deletion discussion is about a specific file and not a place to right great wrongs. Pointing out bias and abusive user behavior is not wrong, but doing nothing beside that does not contribute to consensus-building.

If you believe the opposing side in a discussion is an example of one of Commons' greater issues, explain this to them in relation to the file itself and existing policy – do not view the discussion as being "symbolically" about settling right from wrong for the whole website. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the site unrelated to the discussion you find yourself in, you should use venues such as the Village pump, the Help desk or one of the other places for centralized discussion.

Citing this page indiscriminately

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Used effectively, this page can be used to point out common types of fallacious reasoning. However, participants must still give a valid rationale in support of their position, rather than merely exposing the flaws in their opponents' reasoning. Moreover, they are not always bad arguments to make. If five people have voted to delete per nom and you're the only person considering whether to keep the file, maybe the nominator has laid out the case so well that no more needs to be said.

Category:Commons deletion
Category:Commons deletion Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines