Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
47 copyvios • 10 duplicates • 9 selfies • 46 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

I created this page in the past and redirected technical redirects from Wikipedia to this page, because Meta has the same. I changed the target of the previous redirect Real to Commons:Interwiki prefix titles because for technical reasons, "C:Real" on English Wikipedia redirects to this wiki, and I did the same for C: The Contra Adventure. For technical reasons, interwiki hard redirects aren't allowed. I don't see any other redirects from ENWP that could do this, but we could do this to pages on other wikis, too. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues with having such a page, it is a net-positive and not disruptive to help those accessing our sites.  Support. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

As said copyright on Bluto was not renewed  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Abzeronow and Krd: as the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My information at the time said that Bluto's copyright was in fact renewed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: In Commons:Character copyrights, Bluto is mentioned as "not renewed". So? Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Character copyrights can be difficult -- they don't expire all at once usually. Each time a new cartoon or episode or movie or whatever uses a character, and adds more details to their backstory or changes a drawing style or things like that, it sort of creates a new derivative work of the character. The copyright to the new details lasts 95 years from that date. So, characters don't expire all at once -- they expire bit by bit as each work that added detail or changed things expires. The original Mickey Mouse movie has expired, but lots of later details and appearance changes have not. I don't know how reliable it is, but https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Bluto seems to say the original appearance comic was not renewed. But, it sounds like the character was altered in 1933, and those don't seem to be listed in the "public domain appearances". So if there are significant 1933 changes still under copyright, and this image incorporates those, there would be a problem. If this is the 1932 original, it would seem to be OK. I don't really know a lot about the history of that character. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the videos fall under Template:PD-South Korea-organization, but some appear to have been filmed in the U.S. and produced by U.S. personnel or networks. It would be better if there were more detailed descriptions or links to the sources. There are no direct links available for now.--Namoroka (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Carl Lindberg confirmed this was not a copyright registration  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

I am Hasan Md. Shahriare, a published researcher and CTO of Magnetism Tech Limited. My Wikidata item is Q135092463, which references my peer-reviewed IEEE publication (Q135179996).

I am both the subject and original photographer of the image. I re-uploaded the photo with a valid license (CC0 1.0) and added a neutral caption for Wikimedia-wide educational use, not self-promotion. The image is intended for use in my Wikidata item and possible future biographical content on Wikipedia and other projects.

I request that the deletion be reconsidered as the image supports an existing, notable Wikidata item with academic context and satisfies COM:SCOPE and licensing guidelines.

Thank you.

--Hasanshahriare (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral Just wonder, that who captured your profile picture? If that's just yourself then there's a concern called COM:SELFIE on restoration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, copyright is another issue to be resolved if the Wikidata item is kept. On-wiki licensing per the "Own work" declaraion does not apply: (1) to photos that are not in the original camera resolution, (2) to photos without EXIF metadata, (3) to photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, (4) to photos of identifiable (non-anonymous) authorship. At least few of the requirements are violated here. In any of the mentioned cases, a free license permission from the photo copyright holder through VRT may be needed unless the licensing can be proven basing on earlier publication. So even if it is undeleted, I will nominate if as {{No permission}}. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't think this is a universal requirement. The lighting and framing are obviously non-professional, making it very plausible for it to have been taken with a webcam or mobile phone on a stand. In these cases, it is reasonable to take the uploader at their word. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poundland logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: TOO UK has significantly risen since the deletion, specifically since THJ v Sheridan. Per the logo as it appears on Logopedia on Fandom, it appears to be below TOO. Coleisforeditor (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support peer ChemSim.
AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per the precautionary principle. The logo may be simple for US standards but the UK is known to be restrictive in regards of TOO and this is creative enough IMO and in their standards. THJ v Sheridan is not clear in my opinion, to decisively place this in the public domain. Literally any creative work could be argued to be sufficiently creative to be copyrighted. This is no exception. Sorry to be the aguafiestas (didn't use the English word on purpose). Bedivere (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw the logo that is being asked to be restored is the 2001-2024 (per Logopedia) one. Bedivere (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayantoc Ordinances

Two separate requests (different arguments):

  1. The counter-argument in the original discussion to the idea that these are public-domain Philippine government documents is that the PDFs are not “faithful reproductions” of the ordinances. This seems to me to go against the reasoning of PD-Art and PD-scan. If these are not accurate representations, then I don’t know how we could include these ordinances at all (even though they’re not copyrighted).
  2. In any case, these are certainly in the public domain in the United States, and as they are in use on English Wikisource (where that is the only requirement), they should be undeleted temporarily so as to be moved there.

TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do not accept paintings with frames as {{PD-Art}} as they are 3D. Similarily, these are not 2D copies of : these are photos that consists mostly of documents (~50%). If the photos are made by User:KulturaniJuan and licensed by them as CC0, they may be OK. But unsure and the user is inactive for few years. Also, if someone extracted the documents, removing the whole surrounding parts of the photo, they would be {{PD-scan}}. But not as they are. Ankry (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eg. this file may be OK, IMO. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed thoughts. I'm not sure we want to be a repository for municipal documents. These are undoubtedly available from the municipality and there is no good reason to have them here.
On the copyright issue, while we do not use Bridgeman for works that are not flat, I think we are splitting the hairs a little too much here. I doubt that the photographer could win a copyright claim anywhere as these are simple snaps of papers in a binder. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they are reproduced on Wikisource, they are in scope. Yann (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly in scope, but deletion by User:Krd was copyright related. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hal_Greer_1964.jpeg

This was deleted with the idea that "Please credit United Press International Photo: This picture is for your publication only and must not be loaned, syndicated or used for advertising purposes without written permission from United Press International. By accepting this picture you agree to hold United Press International harmless from any loss or damage arising by reason of your use or publication of this picture.: United Press International, Inc. 220 East 42nd Street New York 17, N. Y." is a valid copyright notice which it is not because it does not contain a copyright notice or symbol.  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The message suggests that receiving this photo in 1964 could not be considered as publication but as private distribution. So what was the real publication date? Its publication on web was much newer. If you wish to reopen the DR you need to provide other arguments than those rejected in the DR.
Pinging @DMacks and Taivo: the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we don't know the "publication" in order to decide whether that fails to have a technically notice (making the image free by virtue {{PD-US-no notice}}). DMacks (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source notes it is from the archives of SPORT magazine. I found an issue of it from May 1965 that has an article about Greer. While it does have a photo, it does not have that particular photo (no evidence of publication at that time), and the issue does have a copyright notice that meets the technical formalities and has many other photos as well (suggesting that if they did publish the photo in question themselves at that approximate time, they would have given notice). DMacks (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITV logo 2013.svg

Hi please undeleted this logo,after 2023 THJ v Sheridan decision now it’s below new UK TOO, and undeleted these logos:

(Notas:See specially case Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-07#File:ITV2 logo 2022.svg and File:ITV3 logo 2022.svg) (google translator) AbchyZa22 11:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:孫健萍向前行.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was intended for inclusion in the Wikipedia introduction page of Taiwanese politician Sun Jianping and has been publicly used in major newspapers and media. Melting black (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Melting black: This was deleted for having been uploaded in violation of copyright; please address this issue. Thuresson (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alyemda Airlines Boeing 707 stamp Democratic Yemen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted because it is "a graphic art work and is not a government document" but it falls under PD per COM:Yemen as works of applied art or photography produced more than 25 years ago or before 2002 are PD in here. There is no reason for it to be deleted 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe that this is public domain in USA? Thuresson (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


File:Great Seal of Australia 2024.png

Derivative work of File:Great Seal of Australia 1973–2024.png, the only difference being the removal of the inscription. The engraving of the coat of arms is the same work as the original from 1973, and therefore qualifies under the original license. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Makes sense to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

Let me delete it I need to save my account want that access to edit back so let me delete and exchange I want to get unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikmolla786 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anikmolla786: You are not blocked on this project. To request being unblocked, you need to add this to your user page on English Wikipedia: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} Thuresson (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Procedural close, no request to undelete any Commons content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raque_Ogando_2025.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons community,

The deletion of this file has been an act of vandalism. The user who removed it cited copyright infringement as the reason; however, no copyright has been violated because I hold both the copyright and the image rights.

If there is any way I can provide evidence to prove my rights and protect this file from future deletions, please kindly advise me on the procedure.

Thank you very much for your attention and support.

Estimados miembros de la comunidad de Wikimedia Commons,

La eliminación de este archivo ha sido un acto vandálico. El usuario que lo eliminó argumentó vulneración de copyright como motivo; sin embargo, no se ha vulnerado ningún derecho, ya que poseo tanto los derechos de autor como los derechos de imagen.

Si existe alguna manera de que pueda aportar pruebas para demostrar mis derechos y proteger este archivo de futuras eliminaciones, les agradecería que me indicaran el procedimiento a seguir.

Muchas gracias por su atención y apoyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC584 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"