Commons:Deletion requests/2026/02/20

February 20

File:Images6.jpg

Copyright violation. For a file to be in public domain in Wikimedia, the file has to be in the public domain in the source country as well as the US. Unfortunately, the following file is not in public domain in the US.

Candidly speaking, any file (whose copyright was not renewed in 1964) published in India after the year 1945 cannot be in public domain in the US due to w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act which came in effect from January 1, 1996. So files, which were already in the public domain in India as per Indian Copyright Act 1914 and also in the US before Uruguay Round Agreements Act can be considered as the best bet.GaiusAugustine (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC) Delete pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline.ferrada (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 July 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:Bokmässan 2025 – 236.jpg

Jag begr att filen tas bort Joelemilsson (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

390
Porträttet har vandaliserats, uppenbarligen för att avbilda en deformerad presentation. Filen tillskrivs "användaren Julle" och refereras till som listad i "Bokmässan 2026 - 238", vilket täcker följande meddelande: "filen kan inte visas" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Writers_-_Sweden#/media/File:Bokm%C3%A4ssan_2025_%E2%80%93_236.jpg. Bilden måste tas bort. ~2026-12140-52 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Is this machine translated into Swedish? I'm not entirely sure what "deformerad presentation" or "täcker följande meddelande" would mean. Either way, please clarify what vandalism you refer to. Julle (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd recommend denying your request to remove a file COM:INUSE, unless there's a copyright problem with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)


Kept: no valid reason for deletion - in use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

File:1887 timetable.jpg

It is the same image as 22 March 1887 Napier Section timetable.jpg Johnragla (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:MacauDingDingBegger1.jpg

low resoulution and out of scope JaydenChao (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what a "Ding Ding beggar" is, but is this our only photo of one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

File:拱手-3.jpg

Low resolution, no EXIF info, unlikely own work. Solomon203 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Crops from Britannica marked by AntiCompositeBot

These pages should be evidently  kept but the description which included the license was deleted upon cropping. I already opened an issue about this apparent bug on the CropTool talk page. Best --Enyavar (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:2019-01-10 Retrato Oficial do Presidente da República - Jair Messias Bolsonaro (cropped).jpg

They changed the copyright license. LeonardoPEBR (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by ConflictFan (talk · contribs)

Hypothetical flag variants are little more than personal art by non notable artists, and are not in scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello my friend. I'd invite you to do more research before you go to such extents. Some of the files you listed are vectorised versions of flags that us Iranians use widely, while others are derivatives of files that have been up on Wikipedia for over a decade; not things that would classify as "personal art".
For instance, File:Lion and Sun flag (dark).svg reflects a social media trend among Iranians to replace the colours of the flag with ones that were originally used prior to the revolution. This is not "personal art"; this Reddit post backs that up with links to Twitter.
Furthermore, many of the files you claimed to be made-up are based off existing files while using the updated emblem. For instance:
The others not mentioned are just modular variants of the emblem; my intention with them was to make variants of the flags have a connection to the standardised template that I made for the Lion and Sun flag
The alternate aspect ratio variants are also in line with precedent on Commons: the flag of the United States is rarely used in and not recognised in 1:2 ratio, but here it is vectorised on Commons as it has for the past 7 years: File:Flag of the United States (2-1 aspect ratio).svg. The purpose of these files were to make it less of a hassle to appropriate the Lion and Sun flag into other commonly adopted ratios, as the 4:7 ratio it currently uses is rare.
With regards to the Kurdish Lion and Sun flags, they are based on an earlier upload to Commons that has been there for almost 2 years already: File:Lion and Sun Kurdish Edition.png.
The slogan flags with the Persian-language text in Nastaliq script are much the same; they are inspired from a file that so far has been left untouched on Commons: File:Lion and Sun Iran flag with "Ya Husayn".png.
I hope you can see that the purpose of my rework of the Lion and Sun was not just to change for the sake of change or to stick my name on something. This design for the Lion and Sun flag was, while widely used, never standardised, meaning that across Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and the entire internet, you would see lots of inconsistent designs, many of which lacking vector renditions. The goal of the modular emblems was to allow for variants to continue existing while being based on a standardised template; all original files were made by @Sodacan.
I'm worried why my contributions would be singled out when the precedent on Commons defends files like these. I'd like to get @Abzeronow's words on this before any action is taken. ConflictFan (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This appears to be part of a recurring pattern of actions by @The Squirrel Conspiracy; see discussion at User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy#State flags in 3:2 aspect ratio regarding the deletion of 2:3 US state flags under the same pretence. ConflictFan (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment @ConflictFan: a recurring pattern of actions by @The Squirrel Conspiracy: yes, a recurring pattern of nominating self-sourced flags that have not been used anywhere on-wiki and for which little evidence has (at time of nomination) been provided for real-world use. I, for one, thank TSC for that recurring pattern.
A DR isn't a speedy deletion. It's the start of a discussion. If you have something solid, you bring it forward. - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
I checked them all, and they are unused in our projects, not even appearing on user pages. Where that is the case, then they are used as cited source material in others of this batch, apparently.
Some of the files appear to be regular versions of the Pahlavi flag: Those may be kept. But others need proper sourcing, for example the emblem with edited-away sword and also no flag background, BUT with an additional Kurdish sun. Yes, that might be a symbol used by pro-Shah Kurdish Iranian pacifists; but then a source is needed, not anonymous assurances of "trust me". Commons is not the place to establish usage of a symbol. So: where ConflictFan did not include sources or references and marked their contributions as "Own work" instead, nothing is wrong with the assumption that they have invented the flag and its elements themmselves, just as stated in the description. And then we would delete these as personal files.
Principally, I support Squirrel Conspiracy in the intent to limit "fan-fiction" flags, even fictional versions of real national symbols, as long as there are no indication of widespread use. Such deletion requests should not be done to single out a user as implied by CF, but applied to all offending flags. However, where dozens of the symbols were provided by one user alone, it does make sense to target all uploads of that one user that are not in scope; and deal with the rest of the non-official "fan" flags in other DRs, maybe at another time even. At least, imagine that is what Squirrel Conspiracy intends here. --Enyavar (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
@Enyavar @Abzeronow Thank you both for your input. To clarify the distinction between real and fictitious flags, I would like to ask what constitutes as a "regular version" of the flag and what types of sources would be considered reliable enough to warrant a file on Commons. Would "regular" in this case mean anything that looks similar to the base flag and has the same exact meaning, e.g. still representing the nation of free Iran as whole?
Could alternate aspect ratios of the base flag be considered regular versions of the flag and therefore be kept? Likewise, are modular versions of the emblem acceptable if they reflect elements that appear in actual use (e.g. combining sun face, wreath, no base, etc.), or should I only upload new versions of the arbitary combinations already on Commons? Some variants, such as the lion with the crown and no wreath, have no base, which is a defining characteristic of the Iranian flag. Deleting File:Lion and Sun (crown).svg for instance to align with that would go against the introduced standardisation.
I was also considering uploading a vector rendition of the so-called "New Iran" flag that is popular in Iranian circles (lion and lioness holding a Derafsh Kaviani). Would that be permissible if I could provide a link to someone else on the internet using/sharing it? More broadly, to what extent are derivatives allowed? For example, would I be allowed to upload a version with base lines, or just the lion holding the Achaemenid standard, or just the lioness?
The aim of my project was not only to standardise the emblem but also to provide as many high quality variants as possible. I am just finishing the job that Sodacan left behind.
With regards to the emblem/flag without the sword, I think it might be a case of me misremembering what the "lion on all fours" variant looked like, so it has no real meaning. However, it could be used as a base file for variants of the flag where the lion is holding something other than a sword (like in the case of the New Iran flag). Therefore, in my opinion, we should allow for File:Lion and Sun (no sword).svg to exist (once I upload it; picture this with the base line) and remove the rest.
Also, I only updated one file during the time that I had autopatrol permissions, so there are still dozens of files that continue to use the old version of the emblem and need to be updated in order to have continuity. If it is not possible for me to regain autopatrol, I would at least like to ask whether I could be granted permission to update existing files while having my uploads continue to be patrolled.
I have sent a letter to Reza Pahlavi's secretariat asking what his position on this matter is and whether he would recognise the Wikipedia standardised design, or any other variant, as the official flag. If this is of interest, I will provide an update if and when I receive a response.
I get that Commons is not meant to be a place where people can upload anything they want, but this isn't Wikipedia where everything needs to be thoroughly supported by reliable sources. If the latter were the case, then 90% of the flag files on this website would have to be deleted. If these same standards were applied to Sodacan in 2012, their professional vector designs would have never been able to see the light of day, and Iran would still have a bunch of random designs with no leading variant. Just because I am attracting attention with my standardisation shouldn't result in different treatment. ConflictFan (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Found the files with the lion holding the hand/paw up with no sword:
ConflictFan (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I also generally agree with my colleague The Squirrel Conspiracy on being conservative about the kinds of flags we host. As Enyavar says, I don't believe this is an attempt to single out a particular user, just set a standard on the scope of flags. We should keep ones that have real life usage, and we should delete the unused hypothetical ones. Abzeronow (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Where's your evidence File:Lion and Sun flag (dark).svg is a "hypothetical flag variant"? That it is not the correct flag? @The Squirrel Conspiracy, it's incumbent on you to answer @ConflictFan when they ask questions, no? I see several relevant questions that have gone unanswered for a month. Or at least we shouldn't delete if there are no answers from the nominee. Robust discussion should take place. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is which, but I photographed people using probably one of the variants in Category:Demonstration in solidarity with Iranian protestors at Brandenburg Gate, Berlin (2026-01-11). RoyZuo (talk) 10:18, 8 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 ConflictFan (talk · contribs)

I'm not 100% clear on what is going on here, but as best I can tell, the uploader is trying to redesign an existing flag, and is using Wikipedia as the Launchpad for the new design. That is not what Wikipedia or Commons is for. Out of scope.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This one I do actually agree with; I think it would be best if they were uploaded as PDFs or to a different website entirely. ConflictFan (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia was already a "launchpad" for the original 2012 design. My rework is just tidying up and standardising the emblem, finishing the job left behind by Sodacan. ConflictFan (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
"Tidying up" a flag design doesn't require 40 uploads, it suffices to upload one or two files with the description of the design. There is a difference between changes to the heraldry (e.g. when the lion no longer holds a swords) which makes the design an "unofficial" one; and changes while keeping the heraldic symbol unchanged (different strokes to define the lion fur).
However, "X just got an update"-infographics are basically advertisement, and should not be done within Commons. If there is a viral document making the rounds outside of Commons, then we could allow an (open) sourced copy, sure. --Enyavar (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
@Enyavar In this case, tidying up the design does necessitate a large number of uploads; if I had updated just two files like @Jooja did in 2025 with their minor revision, then all the other files would continue to use the old unstandardised design. The reason why I started with creating new files was because I lack the permissions to overwrite most of the existing ones. If my overwrite permissions are returned, my focus would of course be on updating existing files, which would be of no concern to Commons' scope.
I uploaded the infographic to Commons because I wanted to have somewhere I could easily link to explaining the changes I made. I recently uploaded it to imgur however, which I think is a more appropriate place to host it: https://imgur.com/a/hGTq9LY ConflictFan (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
@Abzeronow can you delete these 8 infographic files? I think we are all in agreement that they are not suitable for Commons ConflictFan (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Blason De Bretagne Alix.jpg

Des version SVG de ce fichier existent. Il n'est utilisé par aucune page. Artus de Chavagnac (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Artus de Chavagnac:  ?? see other (similar) deletion requests on uploader's tp --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Je ne comprends pas ce que vous voulez que je fasse... Artus de Chavagnac (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Brittany coa.png

Une version SVG exitse déjà. Ce fichier n'est pas utilisé. Artus de Chavagnac (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Artus de Chavagnac: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason De Bretagne Alix.jpg and Commons talk:Superseded images policy. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Donc nous devons conserver ce fichier PNG de mauvaise qualité et utilisé par aucune page Wikipédia alors qu'il existe des fichiers SVG déjà utilisés ? Artus de Chavagnac (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Логотип Юнацького руху Байда.svg

Завелике зображення, інший варіант перевантажений в jpg LE MARECHAL (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete this and File:ЮР Байда Шеврон та логотип.png (and the jpg file if it exists, though, I didn't find it among the user's uploads). The logo belongs to a recently founded organization and is most likely protected by copyright in Ukraine. Nakonana (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Frh.v.Knabenau.jpg

Fälschung Dusdia (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

COM:INUSE, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Tony Cragg in Stockholm 2016.jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. As Tony Cragg is still living and Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, the file cannot be hosted under a free license. Lukas Beck (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hej! Det är full tillåtet att fota offentliga konstverket om enbart delar av konstverk syns. Så är fallet i bilden. 2) Dessutom var det ett tillfälligt skapat konstverk som inte står kvar. Det var uppställt enbart under sommaren 2016 ute på Djurgården i Stockholm. /Med vänlig hälsning DIFFswe (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Could you please substantiate your claim that a temporary work of art and a work of art that is only partially visible (in this specific case, by the way, a large part of the work is visible) are not supposed to be protected by copyright? Lukas Beck (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)


  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files in Category:Discussion (Cragg, Uppsala)

This work of art is copyrighted. As Tony Cragg is still living and Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, the file cannot be hosted under a free license.

Lukas Beck (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Individual images are not the forum for this. So far {{FoP-Sweden|artwork}} has been inconclusive. If you want to argue for deletion then do so by starting a discussion about invalidating that template. /Lokal_Profil 19:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This template makes no sense to me whatsoever. On Commons, the precautionary principle clearly applies. If there is significant doubt regarding the free status of a work, it must be deleted, and in my view, that is absolutely and clearly the case here. Even your strange template explicitly states: 'The depicted work itself is assumed to be protected by copyright.' Since when do we keep images on Commons with such a template and violate our precautionary principle? No, I consider this approach fundamentally wrong; therefore, the images should be deleted. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
It's not my template. This is the template that has been used to tag FoP images in Sweden since before the court case (when the general belief was that FoP indisputably applies in Sweden). The court case made the situation very unclear (because it was a badly worded conclusion). The new legislation coming this year will hopefully, finally, clear this up.
I'm not arguing that all these images should be kept. What I'm saying is that nominating the images one by one hides the larger question here. The way forward would be to start a process by which the template is actively deprecated and any image with it requires a new copyright statement about the original work. That way everyone affected by the change, and knowledgeable about the legal situation will become aware of the discussion/process.
@L. Beck: The fact that you nominated additional individual images after having commented here and this DR not having been resolves is something I think borders on acting in bad faith.
@Infrogmation: : I'm also not super impressed that you closed the other DR where I had pointed to this discussion without even acknowledging it./Lokal_Profil 17:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I categorically reject the accusation. Dozens of deletion requests on this topic have been confirmed by an administrator. I should be allowed to assume that this deletion justification is valid. Lukas Beck (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Then make a Deletion Request which covers the template itself, to invalidate it. To reiterate, my issue is not necessarily with the interpretation that FoP in Sweden doesn’t apply, my issue is with the process by which this is being handled.
@Ainali and LevandeMänniska: whom I only now spotted have also been involved in these discussions and who likely have a better overview of other people who should have this on their radar./ Lokal_Profil 17:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Quoting from the link in the template which is the de-facto recomendations on Wikimedia Commons at the same time that these DRs are being filed.

Following the WMF official statement on 9 August 2017, it's strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged. If for some other reasons than FOP that the affected files must be nominated for deletion, a Swedish-speaking user must be participated in the related deletion request to explain so.

Lokal_Profil 18:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
@L. Beck, if you want to argue the precautionary principle, then you shouldn't do it file by file, but convince the community to change the wording in the policy first. Right now Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Public art even leads with: "Unsure but in accordance with Wikimedia Foundation's 2017 statement, OK and do not delete photos based only on the court ruling". So you are effectively acting against community consensus. Ainali (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I'd rather wait until the debated amendments to the Swedish copyright law have been passed. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#Swedish FoP. It seems apparent that the current version of amendments seek to restrict FoP for monuments to non-general marketing purposes, similar to the norms of Finland, Norway, and Denmark. Buildings will remain free for exploitation by photographers and image re-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Chain of Events by Tony Cragg (Uppsala).jpg

This work of art is copyrighted. As Tony Cragg is still living and Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures, the file cannot be hosted under a free license. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The sculpture is owned by Public authorities and is placed in a public place. I, who uploaded the file, thought Sweden applied freedom of panorama, but if that is not the case, the image should be deleted.--Gotogo (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. We had a pretty extensive conversation about this at the time of the 2017 court case, including a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, and ended up with the guidance in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden#Freedom of panorama, where it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like "no FOP for artworks in Sweden", and try the best to keep the de facto uploads, with {{FoP-Sweden}} template permanently tagged". No policy is set in stone, but it seems like a bad idea to ignore this by simply reporting all most public art for deletion rather than having a larger conversation. /Julle (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Utayachibo (talk · contribs)

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused logos.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you EugeneZelenko.
File:Bernafon Logo.svg、File:HearingLife-Logo.svg and File:HiddenHearing-Logo.svg have been used on the relevant page. Please check! Utayachibo (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
A similar file（File:Oticon logo ny 0.jpg） has already been uploaded, so I agree to delete this file（File:Oticon Logo.png）. Utayachibo (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Flags of islands

Per Commons:Galleries "Gallery pages for flags should be used to display specific collections of flags from closely related entities, such as national flags or the flags of states or provinces within a single country. More general or unrelated groupings become too massive, impossible to complete and difficult to maintain, such as "flags in 3:2 ratio" or "flags with flowers". These are better managed through categories." Kyrgyzstanthefan (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

um, see it. O YEAH  Weak delete Azores191 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
This is very useful for students, please don't delete. ~2026-15222-71 (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Just please note that the user who nominated this file for deletion is a sockpuppet. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that both these accounts are blocked as sockpuppets. Emk9 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Novo-trem-frota-500.jpg

Copyright infringement by ViaMobilidade https://infraroi.com.br/linha-5-do-metro-de-sao-paulo-completa-primeiro-ano-de-operacao-com-143-milhoes-de-passageiros-transportados/ https://abcdoabc.com.br/linha-5-lilas-do-metro-fica-paralisada-por-cerca-de-2-horas-apos-falha-tecnica-em-sp/ Sorocabano 32 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Linha 4 amarela atevila sonnioa.jpg

Copyright infringement by Diego Padgurschi/Folhapress https://www.bol.uol.com.br/noticias/2019/02/07/cade-o-condutor-entenda-a-tecnologia-por-tras-do-metro-que-anda-sozinho.htm Sorocabano 32 (talk) 17:23, 20 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 SagoShader (talk · contribs)

Four places with a same flag? Likely hoaxes. This user has a history of uploading hoax flags. Check Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Flag_of_Hebei.svg

Lemonaka (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Keep - The banners look similar it they feature each state's official emblem (in each case, the national emblem of India differentiated by a text legend) displayed on a white field. Most other states in India use distinct official emblems creating more unique banners. ComminutedOrange (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@ComminutedOrange After checking their official government site, these are true flags. Lemonaka (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Kept: Flags are real. --IronGargoyle (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2022 (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 SagoShader (talk · contribs)

Fake flags, these are hoaxes

Kyrgyzstanthefan (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: Not including Juba, South Sudan. Kyrgyzstanthefan (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
This flag should also be deleted as its quality is terrible. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
No Azores191 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, this is a distorted image of the flag compared to the real one. Here is the real flag of Juba: https://www.vexilla-mundi.com/south_sudan/juba_city_flag.png, the differences are immediately obvious. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
I uploaded the normal version of the flag, so the file should definitely be deleted now. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SagoShader (talk · contribs)

NO SOCKPUPPETS UPLOADING FILES

Azores191 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment: SVGs are being keep Azores191 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh, and the remaining svg files or files that have been added or not been added to the this deletion request. Azores191 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Keep Yes, sock puppets should be blocked. But it is best to keep the files as it was. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I use these for Userboxes. Taking them down doesn't do anything. Don't like it, report the user, but keep the pages intact. I'm worried about using one since it's been flagged and other flags from that group have already been removed... :( C3PHAL0BR0P0D (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Delete per DENY. Yann (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Some files are COM:INUSE, often very widely across a variety of projects.  Keep those,  Delete the rest. ~TheImaCow (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

File:Flag of Minnesota specification.svg

Source not in public domain Femfem5 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep this version and delete former version from file history if that's the case. While I do admit to pulling the base from a website, the current version is the work of user @Abemos and it can be reasonably inferred that their version is freely licensed as a contribution to Wikimedia Commons. If the former version is deleted I'd advise the same for this file and this file. Yovt (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    I agree with @Yovt, I believe that the orginal version (this counts for the other flags in the series too) are be ineligible for copyright. But even if not, then the derivative versions definetely are allowed. Abemos (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Penis graffiti, Baku, Azerbaijan.jpg

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article RGLIHO (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The nomination is nonsense, but the graffiti is presumably above COM:TOO Azerbaijan and figures to be deleted for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
 Keep as it isn't the lowest quality graffiti I've seen on here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

File:Swern oxidation.png

This file was initially tagged by Orci as Speedy (SLA) and the most recent rationale was: extreme low quality, no use - Not a valid speedy criteria, converting to regular DR The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Kunst België (talk · contribs)

Out of scope/self promo. Five photographs of artworks by Flemish artist Peter Van de Velde. They appear on his website https://beeld.be/nl/kunstenaars/peter-van-de-velde. Uploaded while editing an artikel on Dutch Wikipedia which has been deleted for non-notoriety and self-promotion. If uploader "Kunst België" is the artist himself, there is no copyvio, but he should be clear about this ; however that would mean it is self-promotion. If uploader is not the artist and has taken the photographs from the website, that would mean copyright violation.

Henxter (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Austronesian Sail Types.png

Previously published, so a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Are we sure it was previously published, it only states "per" a source, not "copied" from a source. Can be a recreation with a source as guide for facts/guides. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I have the published source beside me now. It is also available at . The Commons diagram and caption are clearly copied from the published source. There are differences, but these seem to be minor.
Note that I also have an informal e-mail from the publisher to state that the use of this on Commons is OK. I can send you this e-mail if it would help.
What occurs to me is that the copyright might be owned by the author. My information is that he was born in 1918, but I cannot find a date of death. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Doran, Edwin, Jr., 1918-1993. --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Opti2026-kommunikation-mb-50076.jpg

Commercial, out of scope. No educational benefit apparent. Mussklprozz (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a photo illustrating the atmosphere at opti 2026. As a matter of fact the depicted panel was instructional about hearing acoustics to benefit the hering impaired. The rights of the picture are ok for this kind of publication (downloaded from the opti website). So it's only appropirate to have the picture published. Thank you and kind regards. Patrick Leigh (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
The photo is publicly available for exactly this kind of use on the opti Website:. Here's the link: https://www.opti.de/de/fuer-presse#c10190
Thank you and best regards. Patrick Leigh (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Zip-Up House model.jpg

COM:FOP UK only allows reproductions of models if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. This seems to have been part of a non-permanent museum exhibition. Consigned (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Mahmood Abad, Tehran, Iran - panoramio.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in Iran, and this image is centered on the copyrighted Milad Tower. HurricaneZetaC 22:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)