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
26 copyvios • 5,939 duplicates • 1 advert • 31 selfies • 24 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

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann As Ankry suggested below, that free-licensed one isn't really "same as the deleted one here", probably just re-upload it, please? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@999real: This is not the same logo. Feel free to upload it under CC0 providing that source. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Direct restoring, but  Support re-uploading a correctly licensed one, per Ankry, previous one might have differently designed shapes. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files in Category:Die Partei (Reutlingen)

About 30 files deleted as of arbitrary accusations, with no understandable comment Dulliman (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them arbitrary. And I understood the comments and close. Jim concluded these were out of scope posters. Abzeronow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dulliman Das Argument out of scope verstehst Du? Die Löschung ist begründet. Wikipedia ist kein Ort für politische Kampagnen. – Do you understand the argument ‘out of scope’? The deletion is justified. Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigns. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dulliman: What should be taken into account for artistic works by non notable authors: educational value of the works by themselves, whether they were used elsewhere, quality of the reproduction, etc. There is a difference between educational works (e.g. File:Jupiter diagram.svg), works used during some notable events (e.g. File:Mai 1968. (Sans texte) - maquette d'affiche ? - non identifié - btv1b9018450b.jpg), and vanity works without any educational use. Yann (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the whole category seems to be "out of scope" ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Election_posters_in_Germany_by_party Dulliman (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This party doesn't have an article on Wikipedia? Yann (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No answer. If the party had a page, this would be in scope. I am not 100% sure in this case, but even small parties with minor political impacts usually have a page. Yann (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer, but I found that there is an article: en:Die PARTEI. Yann (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

These appear to be cropped images from an anonymous UK group shot from 1895 and the another group shot circa 1900 when these players were on the team. The consensus was to keep, they were deleted, then restored, then apparently deleted again. They should be restored. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Hosting them here with false authorship / licensing is pointless. As nobody wanted to fix this information, their undeletion is also pointless. Following the recent restoration, neither the user requesting the restoration nor any of the users supporting the action did so for several months. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I rather support keeping these files. However the license, the date, the source, and the author should have been fixed after undeletion, and they weren't. If neither the uploader or you are able to do it, why requesting undeletion again? Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to notify me if you want me to fix them. I only noticed them undeleted and then deleted again when I posted this. I will fix them if they are undeleted. But someone has to message me that they are available to edit again. --RAN (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VFC will do cut and pastes across a list of files -- which can be a gallery or a category, among others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never used VFC, can you do it, once restored? It looks like I fixed File:RHurtley.jpg, and a few others, then could not figure out how to automate the process, back at the original nomination. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yuhan Logo (ENG).svg

Below TOO in South Korea--Trade (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The tree is not incidentally included. Per COM:DM South Korea. Thuresson (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the tree is not incidentally included per COM:DM South Korea, the object stated above may be fall with another PD-license, that is either {{PD-South Korea-anon}} (in case of creator of the work is unknown) or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (in case of a work created on behalf of organization). As stated of two templates, According to Article 40, 41, and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known (unless the creator of the logo was publicly known) and works created on behalf of organization enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013) In other words, organizational, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea. In case of Yuhan willow tree logo, it was exist in various incarnations since the creation of the company in 1926, and the current incarnation of the logo, with circle included, was presumably created in 1956. 1959 advertisement and calendar of 1962 also included the current incarnation of the logo as well. I also believe that the actual creator of Yuhan Willow tree logo is unknown (apply {{PD-South Korea-anon}}), and if was publicly known, its copyright might be expired as well. Assuming that the current incarnation of the logo was created in 1956, it may be expired on 1 January 1987 (before its copyright term was extended to 50 years according to new law in July of next year, but is non-retroactive to works already expired). So, i suggest the file will be restored with licensing changed. Yayan550 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uh oh, you deleted file after merge, see COM:TOO South Korea YehudaHubert (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ethnic groups of Afghanistan by district, detailed.svg

Hallo @Hakaped, leider war ich die ganze Woche mit einem Umzug beschäftigt, daher bin ich nicht dazu gekommen, das zu kommentieren. Die Quellen meiner Informationen hatte ich ja bereits angegeben, das Zusammenstellen der Karte selbst habe ich erledigt. Das gilt im Übrigen auch für die anderen Dateien mit dem Titel "Ethnic groups of Afghanistan by district", die ich selbst erstellt habe. Daher bitte wiederherstellen.--SdHb (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There is no credit or source given for the base map. It is hard to believe that the uploader drew this from scratch. The file was deleted as "no source", but the uploader references Districts of Afghanistan#List of districts, but enclosed the reference only in [[x]] so the reference shows up as a non-existent Commons Gallery page rather than a link to WP:EN.

If we can confirm that the base map is freely licensed, then this page took a lot of work and would be useful to those interested in Afghanistan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tami Irelly 1.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of this file for the following reasons:

  • Saya adalah pemegang hak cipta dan akan memberikan izin yang benar, ini adalah karya saya sendiri, terjadi kesalahan dalam penghapusan, saya juga tidak mendapatkan alasan yan jelas tentan penghapusan foto tersebut.

Zrinxa (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zrinxa: Hi, Who is the photographer? What is the educational use of this picture? BTW this question also concerns all of your uploads. Yann (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is a question, but I think it is in scope, see [2] .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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]

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]

File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg

I kindly request the undeletion of the file File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg.

This image is a portrait photograph that I **took myself**, and I am the copyright holder. At the time of upload, I released the image under the **Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)** license, allowing for free use, redistribution, and modification, including for commercial and educational purposes.

The image was intended for use on the Wikipedia page of Alejo Igoa as an infobox profile photo, which is a valid and educational use consistent with Commons policy.

I am willing to re-upload the image if needed, clearly marking the license and providing all required information.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Alexrod1 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexrod1, the file was deleted as a personal photo from a non contributor. There is only one WP article on Alejo Igoa, Alejo Igoa, but the photo there shows black hair. The subject image shows a blond. However, I also note that the subject image was removed from that article when the image was deleted. Are the two images the same person? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment, he has some blonde hair on newer images, see his instagram account. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found the image. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, yes, it is the same person. He uses black hair and also blond hair as someone commented above. Could you undelete the image please? Let me know if it is possible. Thank you so much in advance. Alexrod1 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

file:Magomed Kukurhoev.jpg

It is said in ticket:2025070310010638: "I only added the external link not as a source of the image, but to indicate that the person in the photo is indeed the individual the article is about". They further confirm they personally created the file and grant permission under a free license (CC BY-SA 4.0, but I think, there is no need for the permission here, if the file is not somewhere else in Internet). The inclusion of the link was misunderstood and does not indicate third-party authorship or source. Анастасия Львоваru/en 13:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvova: it is uncleat to me what is your request. We talk about this photo - it is not a selfie. If the link provided as a source (dead link for me - 403) is an incorrect information, we cannot rely also on their authorship declaration at upload and a written free license permission from the photographer is needed.
Is the abovementioned ticket a free license permission ticket from the photographer? Ankry (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the idea of a selfie even come from? Nobody said it was a selfie. The person says they took the photo themselves and uploaded it. They added a link to another photo of the same person just to show it’s the same person — not as a source. Yes, it caused confusion, but no, that link was not meant as the source.
I'm not a sysop and can't see exactly which link was on the deleted page, but I see two in your message, and the one that currently gives a 403 is still available via archive.
So, again: the uploader claims they took the photo themselves, and the link was just a mistake. Based on this, I believe there's no need for additional proof of authorship. Анастасия Львоваru/en 14:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Lvova: please, continue. Sorry for misunderstanding and the delay. Ankry (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ahmed al-Sharaa Feb 2025.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The video URL which is the source of the file on Commons, is under a free license (as shown here by @Admin:Yann) and from a verified YouTube channel. The video bears the channel's logo exclusively. No credible URL has been provided. Instead, scattered URLs have been provided from several sources in different countries, each time with the inconclusive claim that this might be the source of the video. I have no objection to deleting the file if an explicit URL to a reliable source for the video is provided. Regards, Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmed al-Sharaa Feb 2025.png. Yann (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleting admin, I'll state that there was evidence submitted that Associated Press is the true copyright holder of that file (and AP is global). Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from my response to the AP video claim as I have previously refuted this claim:

AP video is clearly different in its content and length, and it has a watermark that is NOT present in the YouTube video that is the source of the file on Commons, which exclusively carries the Kanal13 channel logo, not to mention the three-minute time difference between the two videos being posted, which I believe is meaningless and useless in this discussion, and a minor comparison was also made between the title and description of two different videos from two different sources. It is well known that titles and descriptions for videos are generally created using tools that take into account the availability of keywords that visitors are searching for. It is common for video titles and descriptions to be duplicated between publishers to attract the largest number of searchers on search engines for video content.. I believe that there is a verified and credible YouTube channel that posted the source video with a valid Creative Commons license on YouTube, and there is no conclusive evidence of a copyright violation.

Masry1973 | مصري1973 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmed al-Sharaa Feb 2025.png. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 15 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]

Works by José Clemente Orozco

And files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:2012 335v1.jpg

José Clemente Orozco died in 1949, one term of {{PD-Mexico}} is author died before 1952 (Mexico had a term of 30 years after the author's death until 1982.. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:José Clemente Orozco, Échate la otra.jpg  REAL 💬 ⬆   13:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I see no information in Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico whether the 1982 copyright term extension was not retroative. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The above does not apply to works that were already in the public domain before 23 July 2003. Generally speaking, that means works created by someone who had died before 1952 are in the public domain, since they died 30 years before the non-retroactive extension to life plus 50 years was implemented on 12 January 1982." "Copyright terms have been repeatedly extended, but not retroactively. Works remained in the public domain if they were in the public domain before each new law took effect"  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion, then. Ankry (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of country subdivisions

Please undelete the gallery page Flags of country subdivisions because this gallery was notable enough to keep this gallery, as I cleaned them up already, but this page already listed in the nomination. However, I understand this thread, but this gallery was used to have clearly defined to include "only first-level subdivisions" and it contains around 600 images of flags I guessed, and it was the main gallery page for the corresponding category. There are subdivisions without its own flags, and it wasn't included in the gallery.

This gallery page was literally related to "country subdivisions" and I don't want to lose my mind, because I have worked very hard over the last years under this section. I would spy to any new edits on that gallery page to prevent the another vandalism and disinformation and keeping it usable again. I have reviewed all relevant policies on Wikimedia Commons for this gallery page and cannot find a single one that it violates. Alexphangia Talk 15:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This deletion was a result of a formal proposal and the outcome was quite clear. A page that was deleted following a proposal should not be undeleted two weeks later unless there was some formal error. Thuresson (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was some cleanup on the page after the opening of the proposal fixing most of the problems with this particular gallery. But there are still problems with the gallery like occupied territories listed as regular subdivisions of countries. We could suggest to undelete the gallery and open a regular deletion request to give a last chance fixing the remaining problems. The general scope of the gallery is fine as long as it is strictly followed. GPSLeo (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there are still problems with the gallery like occupied territories listed as regular subdivisions of countries. Those are literally proposals like Abkhazia in Georgia but not in use, Russia's Kherson Oblast and Zaporozhye Oblast flags are also officially in use since the 2022 occupation that Ukraine doesn't recognise them. Also, I don't think that we'll open a regular deletion request, since we could easily fix them all. There was some cleanup on the page after the opening of the proposal, fixing most of the problems with this particular gallery. What's kind of problems or clean-ups are there for the rest of its gallery? Alexphangia Talk 20:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Note I did offer to userify the gallery so that the requester could break it down into smaller, more focused galleries, and not lose the work that they put into cleaning it up while it was still one gigantic gallery. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above option (moving the gallery to user's sandbox) is worth  Support if User:Alexphangia confirms that they are interested in it. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did come here after I made that offer and they responded to it, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to that gallery page be in the main space. Not as my personal user page. Alexphangia Talk 07:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This big gallery was declared out of scope in community discussion. We are bound with community decisions. All you can do is to split it into smaller, per-country galleries basing on its content. Ankry (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shweta Shetty Shashi Gopal.jpg

This file was nominated for deletion as a COM:PERSONAL upload. However, it could actually be used to illustrate en:Shweta Shetty. Joofjoof (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral Looking at the photo, I wouldn't call it "unusable" but I would call it "terribly low quality". It's a scan of a paper photo with a lot of damage to the photo itself and blown out colors. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This looks like a photo of a photo. Who was the original photographer, where and when the original photo was made? Ankry (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomo y obligo (tango).jpg

This is a photo I took myself of an old partiture that belongs to me. It is my own work (a photo I took myself), and the design contained is very old and in the public domain. Please undelete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMizuki (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the photo was illustrating the article "Tomo y obligo" in the Spanish Wikipedia. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnMizuki: Who was the photographer of the original photo (printed there) and when was the partiture published? Ankry (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the photo of the man depicted in the partiture? I don't know, but the man depicted is Carlos Gardel, who died on 24 June 1935, so the photo was taken before that date. I can't find a date in the partiture, but it's referencing the film "Luces de Buenos Aires" (1931), so it must have been published shortly after that film was released. For context, photo copyright in Argentina lasts for 20 years, and the Argentine copyright office (INPI, Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Intelectual) was created in 1993. So neither the partiture nor the contained photo have ever been registered nor could be registered for copyright. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the photo seem to be PD for long time due to 20 year copyright term. Assumming the partiture was published 31-35, its 50-year since publication term expired (for anonymous works) before 1996. So no URAA copyright. I do not think that copyright registraion was required or would affect its status.  Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arbolantxako Goikoetxe.jpg

Please, see my previous undeletion request Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-07#File:Arbolantxako Goikoetxe.jpg

Finally this image has been deleted. Please could you restore it?

And please, additionally, consider to apply the same undeletion request for those two files:

Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{O}} We cannot host files without a free license. Ankry (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those images have CC-BY-SA license in Flickr. They are my own pictures, I upload them to Commons using the uploadWizard from Flickr. See the last decision to undelete a similar image some weeks ago: #File:Antton_Valverde_-_Karlos_Gimenez_-_Adarra_Saria_-_20250621_210515.jpg
It seems that the UploadWizard didn't copy the license from Flickr. Could you, please, undelete those images? Ksarasola (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support the first and 2nd basing on Flickr license, but author attribufion needs to be fixwd to Flickr's one (we have no evidence if Wikimedia user is authorized to change it). Flickr license for the seal if not valid; it may be PD, but we need more information about it (eg. creation date). Ankry (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elon Musk net worth graph.png

This file was deleted with the comment:

"Faked license and/or description -- per Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:GPSLeo/temp"

However

  • it is not listed on that page
  • it is not copyrighted, because it no original work, but just a plot of data.

Please restore. The description can be fixed. If the author was faked, then it can be set to "unknown", as this is public domain anyway.

For the case it will still stay deleted, please restore it temporarily in my user space, so that I can upload it at German Wikipedia. --PM3 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. It is ineligible for copyright, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Ankry. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cognizance (band) logo.jpg

Undelete Cognizance band logo

The file is the following: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cognizance_(band)_logo.jpg

It is copyright free and adheres to all the rules stated in the guides. If I made a mistake during upload, then please tell me what I did wrong or reason and I can fix it.

Thanks for your time.

Cemeterio90 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look copyright free at all to me. The only copyright information I could find on the band's website is "all rights reserved". Where did you download this exactly and where is the license information? --rimshottalk 21:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JohnBurnettClassicstSktch1917.jpg

Latest version of this file contains enough original content to be accepted. The original photo will be in the public domain in 2 yrs since photographer died in 1958. The original photo was in black and white. The latest version is not a copy, as can be seen by looking at the image, has been colorized and words from Burnett's 1892 'Early Greek Philosophy' introduction blended into the background. Please do not be swayed by previous image file deletions. File:BarbourJulian2014.jpg was provided to me by Julian Barbour himself to be included in his Wikiquote article, and was deleted due to a technicality. The same photo was later resubmitted by Julian's son upon my request and is now posted in the wikiquote article. The photo 4BravesMmPeriersNormandy.jpg was provided by the French organization that purchased the work from the artist, and portrayed WWII Silver star medal winning hero Virgil Tangborn, who sacrificed his life for this country, but whose Wikipedia article was also deleted, since he was not considered of great enough import to be mentioned.

ELApro (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Derivative of Stoneman's photo. This can be undeleted in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commemorative plaque of Professor Kazimierz Sawicki (2024) Szczecin.jpg

I request the undeletion of this file. I am the photographer and the author of this work. The photograph was taken by me on 14 October 2024, during the official unveiling of the commemorative plaque for Professor Kazimierz Sawicki, held at the Szczecin branch of the Polish Association of Accountants. I was personally present and participated in the unveiling, with full permission to document the event.

The plaque is a permanent public installation in a publicly accessible space. It contains only plain text and no copyrighted design or artistic work. The file was uploaded by me and clearly marked as Own work, with appropriate license (CC-BY-SA 4.0). The deletion rationale based on “derivative of non-free content (F3)” is a misapplication in this context.

Please restore the file, which is important for documenting a notable public event.

--MonaLisaTwist (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masur: Thuresson (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is just the plaque, I don't know about Polish FOP in this case, but other countries with FOP don't allow a copyrighted object free from surrounding context. 2.) Polish FOP is outdoors only, it doesn't cover indoors. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MonaLisaTwist: We need written free license pewmissions from the original photo copyright owner and the text author as described in VRT. You provided no evidence that the text or the photo right of it is freely licensed nor that the plate is located in public place outdoor. Otherwise, they need to be considered non-free. Per our policy, "Own work" based licensing applies only to original photos of non-copyrighted content. Ankry (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerial View of Cabanatuan American Memorial.jpg

I would like to request undeletion of this file. The previous upload was deleted because I mistakenly marked it as "own work." I now have explicit permission from the original content owner — the Facebook page “Where in Nueva Ecija” — to share this image on Wikipedia.

They confirmed their permission via Facebook Messenger. Screenshot of the permission is available here: https://imgur.com/a/1wI6qN1

I will correct the file description, attribute the photo to “Where in Nueva Ecija,” and apply the appropriate license (CC BY-SA 4.0) upon restoration.

Uploader: User:Jarel Zoldyck

Thank you. Jarel Zoldyck (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We cannot rely on screenshots. They are too easy to falsify. The permission must originate either from the original publication page or needs to be sent to VRT by the copyright holder directly. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As advised, I have informed the original content owner — the Facebook page “Where in Nueva Ecija” — to send their permission via email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. They have confirmed that the email has already been sent using their official email address: whereinnuevaecija@gmail.com, under the names [Alvin D & Darell R].
The permission grants use of the image on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for educational and informational purposes, provided proper attribution is given.
For further verification, here is the official Facebook page of “Where in Nueva Ecija” with over 37,000 followers: https://m.facebook.com/WhereInNuevaEcija/. The aerial photo in question is one of the images featured in their cover photo. Interested reviewers or admins may also contact the page directly for further confirmation, if needed.
I hope this satisfies the VRT requirements. Kindly reconsider the undeletion of the file. Thank you.
— Jarel Zoldyck (talk) Jarel Zoldyck (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CubanRevolution.jpg

File was deleted due to "nobody has shown that the photographer is unknown or that Cuban photographs from before 1997 is public domain" on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CubanRevolution.jpg, based on COM:Cuba, in Cuba copyright of photographs expire in 25 years (14/1977-1994 Article 47), and that "Photographs are in the public domain in the United States if first published in Cuba without compliance with US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before 20 February 1972." This file should then fall under Template:PD-Cuba, based on the description giving in the Deletion request. It seemed like the file was only deleted because there was no copyright tag for Cuba at the time. CubanoBoi (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandera de La Habana.png

File can be seen: Bottom left, labeled as "Banderin Provincial"

Already undeleted file on [3] due to being a "fake" flag, although I showed instances of it being used with government officials of the City of Havana.

This time it was deleted due to invalid "self" claim. The version of the Coat of Arms seen on this specific flag can be seen on this EcuRed article, captioned as "Versión que data de finales del Siglo XIX.", translating to "Version that dates to the end of the 19th century." Based on this, the Coat of arms should be under Template:PD-Cuba on the "Anonymous works" section. (also there should likely be other templates for each section in my opinion).

The rest of the file is text and a fringe, with the flag being in a category:Swallowtails (flags) style. CubanoBoi (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Terranica Dreamtrack (08).jpg

The uploader didn't write a license, and I put it for all files from this ticket by myself, and it seems forgot to do for this one. But everything is fine, it is cc-by-sa 4.0 per ticket:2025070710012709. Анастасия Львоваru/en 05:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: VRT permission added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BigBo 07.jpg (and probably something else for 2022021810004186)

Was deleted because Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons: I checked the VRT ticket today. No response has been received after the last message with a question of the agent. Well, the question from the agent was give us links to the files so that we can put the permission on the page. Just a technical problem, not a serious violation. Анастасия Львоваru/en 05:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Lvova: Please process the ticket in a timely manner to avoid redeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crabjoys.png

File:Crabjoys.png

I do not understand why this file is deleted. I created this with IA, it’s my personnel work and it respects the authors rights. I use the file as a Wikimédia Common.

--PeterJam23 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)-PeterJam23 16/07/2025[reply]

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