Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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
10 copyvios • 2 duplicates • 195 selfies • 6 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

File:The Route.jpg

The user had contacted VRT users before (see: {{RaftFilms Permission}})

Not sure but as far as I can remember these two images had been published on Commons for the first time so netcopyvio is not valid.

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support {{RaftFilms Permission}} appears to be valid and is present on the first file, so this deletion seems to be a mistake. As far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with the other two. Note that the copyright watermark in File:Taghi Rahmani.jpg must remain -- from the text of the CC-BY license:

Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
....
ii. a copyright notice;
....

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see [1]) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn Zoological Bulletin

For example:

The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License per https://zoologicalbulletin.de/content-policy. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your "most of the time" case is actually an exception. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Blockhaj

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Listed files were deleted due to incorrect self-licensing, despite being in public domain. This mass deletion (see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blockhaj) was 7 years ago. I (the uploader) was at the time young, inexperienced, depressed, among more, and thus never got around to fixing their licenses, and thus they where deleted. Today, this is an easy fix. Blockhaj (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the correct licence for each file? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused Since i cannot see the images, i can only estimate based on memory and name. In order:
Blockhaj (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Insignia-Sweden is a redirect to Template:Insignia, which does not confer any copyright status upon the article
The first and last two items are presumed to be fully copyrighted because you have not provided proof of free licencing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Whyiseverythingalreadyused The last two motifs already exist on commons: File:Flygvapnet vapen bra.svg. The insignias would probably be given CC 4.0. Compare with the most recent offical Swedish government files: File:Vapen för Myndigheten för civilt forsvar - Riksarkivet.jpg. Blockhaj (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blockhaj: then they do not need to exist for a second time Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 02:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is conventional to have several stylistic variations of coats of arms, some quick examples: Category:SVG coats of arms of Sweden, Category:Coats of arms of Småland (File:Ekobrottsmyndigheten vapen bra.svg, File:Ekobrottsmyndigheten vapen.svg)
The existing Swedish Air Force COA is infamously ugly, and im working on a new svg for it, however, i still want this deleted version for legacy reasons. The specific round type, File:Svenska flygvapnets vapen vid FMV.png does not exist already. It was part of a group of three, together with: File:Svenska armens vapen vid FMV.png, File:Svenska marinens vapen vid FMV.png Blockhaj (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo, as the deleter, do u have a comment? Blockhaj (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you are not the original photographer. So real source is needed for photos: where did you take them? Original photographer's name would be good, although this is not necessary. Creation year and first publication data are needed to confirm, that the license applies. And here your words are not enough, more evidence for creation year and publication year are needed. Why do you think, that the photos are not created in 1980s and still copyrighted? Taivo (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo Since i am unable to see them, i can only guess based on name, but i do believe i have the sources for all of them. Some i also believe i have reuploaded over the years. Would it be possible to restore them for a period so i can fix as many as possible, and those which prove troublesome reflagged and deleted? Blockhaj (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blockhaj: I undeleted all photos so that you can give correct source and correct license during a week. After that I will delete the photos without correct source and license. For logos I do not see plausible license, because {{Insignia}} is not a license. Taivo (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo Thank you. The insignias will feature Template:cc-by-sa-4.0 because they are drawn by me from Scratch. Blockhaj (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Several Chinese pictures

Same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peng Dehuai (1948).png and others: Mistakenly deleted because of alledged URAA restoration: All of those were made before 1991 (and most of it, before 1949) so it must had felt under the 著作權法 (民國33年) [Copyright Law of the Republic of China (1944)]:

Photographs and Sound Recordings were protected for 10 years after publication. That means copyright must had expired before URAA could restore anything.

Files affected:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:大音乐家马思聪.jpg: The discussion says it was made 1947, clearly under 1928/1944 law and PD by 1957.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:岸信介拜會嚴家淦院長(朱正祺攝).jpg: Unknown date, probably PD before 1996.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:李俊仁肖像.png: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:王炳南.jpg: Same case as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:穿制服的少女 (陳敬輝, 1940年代左右).jpg: title says 1940, cleary PD by 1951 (or 1971 if official work)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:黃炳松肖像.jpg: unknown date, likely candidate to be restored.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣經國特使覲見泰王.jpg: Same as above
Commons:Deletion requests/File:蔣桂琴肖像.jpg: Same as above
File:Puyi's sister Reginald Fleming Johnston in Kew.jpg: from the 1930s. If it was an official work, then PD before 1970, if just a picture, PD by 1950 the latest.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Zedong in Xibaipo.jpg: Likely made in 1948-early 1949, so PD by 1960.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maozedong.jpg: Unknown date, likely to be PD.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:大澳橫水渡 WKYP 19620429.png: Same as above.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Desheng 1952.jpg: Made in 1952, PRC did not have a Constitution until 1954, so I'm assuming 1928 law still is valid.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zhang Ailing 1954.jpg: Made in 1954, same rationale as above (depends on what was before, Constiution or pic).
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enlai-Yingchao (1963).jpg: Made in 1963, but PRC had no copyright law of its own, under same rationale: PD by 1974.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1958 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong in 1959: Even if made during PRC, the 1928-1944 copyright law was never substituted.

There are many more cases, I'll check it out.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing… --Yann (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/China, The People's Republic of China government does not recognise the legitimacy of the Republic of China, and Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China is retroactive. Therefore laws of the ROC is not relevant and TaronjaSatsuma's claim is most likely incorrect. Pinging @Teetrition for input. Wcam (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wcam. For works created in mainland China after October 1949, ROC law is no longer applicable; instead, the PRC Copyright Law (1990) should be applied because of its retroactivity. Teetrition (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition and Wcam: Could you please explain and give a link to the relevant laws. This should be documented somewhere on Commons. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article 17 of the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference formally abolished all laws, decrees, and the judicial system of the "Kuomintang reactionary government" (the ROC government). While the text includes the qualifier "which oppress the people," this should not be interpreted as allowing certain ROC laws to remain valid.
In fact, this article constitutes a total repeal of the ROC legal system. This interpretation is supported by the Directive on the Abolition of the Kuomintang's Complete Book of Six Codes, which explicitly categorized the "Six Codes" (the entire ROC legal corpus) as inherently oppressive. Therefore, no ROC statutes survived the transition to the PRC's legal jurisdiction.
From another perspective, if ROC copyright law had remained valid in mainland China from 1949 to 1990, there would have been no need for the PRC Copyright Law to include provisions regarding its retroactivity. The very existence of such retroactive mechanisms implies a legal vacuum, rather than a continuation of ROC law. Teetrition (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1st October 1949 is the proclamation of the PRC, but the PRC did not have a constitution of its own until 1954. Which date should we take? there is any court ruling anything on this regard? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The enactment of the 1954 Constitution is irrelevant to this issue, as the PRC government had already promulgated numerous edicts prior to that year. For instance, the Regulations of the PRC on Punishment of Counter-revolutionaries was enacted in 1951.
Furthermore, Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, adopted on September 29, 1949, served as the de facto Constitution. Official sources have confirmed that the Common Program functioned as the interim constitutional law during that period. [3] Teetrition (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Teetrition: Thanks for all the details. So, in short, only pictures from before October 1949 might be OK? Yann (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Club the seals now! Save the whales for later.jpg et al

ArthurWilliamJack uploaded a bunch of images of pins scanned by the London School of Economics, then realized that the LSE was claiming copyright over them, and requested they be speedy deleted G7. Many of the pins can be kept as {{PD-Art|PD-Text}}, and I'm going though the list to save the ones I can, but a few got deleted by Túrelio before I got to them.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These are all clearly below the USA ToO, but I suspect most of them may be above the UK's ToO since there is a typographical copyright there. See File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg which is under copyright in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what the new standard *is*, but there has been a new, more lenient standard since the THJ v Sheridan case in 2023. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Please can my request as uploader to delete them all be honoured? I thought that was a given? I appreciate differences exist between US and UK copyright, but also that we shouldn't upload to Wikimedia Commons if they are protected by copyright in the home country. It was an error that LSE marked them as 'No Known Copyright Restrictions' on Flickr and that has now been resolved. They remain on LSE Digital Library. Do I need put in the request again The Squirrel Conspiracy? Thanks! ArthurWilliamJack (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I am inclined to believe that whether or not they are above the normal copyright ToO, they fall under the UK Typographical Copyright, which we must honor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Dudley Allen.jpg File:Henry Picard.jpg File:Cat and Claret.jpg and File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg have all been deleted from my uploads.

Ticket#: 2026020510007253

A user named Whyiseverthingalreadyused went and deleted four of my portrait images and many other images that I inserted into Wikipedia biographies, all in one day of vandalism. He also deleted some text I added. He somehow got the idea that I am not who I say I am, and am infringing on the copyright of the rightful artist.

I have so far uploaded 20 of my oil painting portraits onto Wikimedia Commons. All but three of them were also uploaded by me onto Wikipedia biography pages of the people featured in the paintings. So far the specific deletions that have been carried out by the user Whyiseverthingalreadyused are as follows:

File:Dr. Dudley Allen.jpg was deleted from my Uploads Page on Wikimedia Commons. It is one of the three that I had not yet uploaded to his biographical page because I also wanted to add some biographical information along with the picture and hadn't gotten around to it yet.

File:Henry Picard.jpg is another picture deleted from my Uploads Page, and also one that I had not yet uploaded to Picard's biography page.

File:Cat and Claret.jpg has also been deleted from my Uploads Page, and it has also been deleted from the biography page of William Marshall Wright, who is pictured in the painting along with his wife.

File:Robert B. Krupansky.jpg and File:Robert B. Krupansky Sketch.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of Robert B. Krupansky. Curiously, they were not deleted from my Uploads Page, though it is noted in my Uploads Log that the Krupansky Sketch is marked for deletion.

File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg and File:Horace Chapman Rose - Sketch.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of H. Chapman Rose. The File:Horace Chapman Rose.jpg was also deleted from my Uploads Page, but not the Sketch.

File:Alexander Shabalov Smiling.jpg and File:Alexander Shabalov Contemplating.jpg were both deleted from the biography page of Alexander Shabalov. The pictures were not deleted from my Uploads Page. Also some significant biographical information about Shabalov's performance in Chess Olympiads that was added by me, was also deleted.

File:Marian K. Shaughnessy.jpg was deleted from the Wikipedia page on the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing. The file was not deleted from my Uploads Page.

File:Dr. Tommaso Falcone.jpg was deleted from the Wikipedia page on Robotic Surgery. The picture was not deleted from my Uploads Page. The user Whyiseverythingalreadyused also made two more edits on that page on the same day, unrelated to my painting.

File:Dr. Irwin Marcus & son Dr. Randall Marcus.jpg was deleted from the biography page of Irwin Marcus. The picture was not deleted from my Uploads Page.

Can you please help?

Steven Seward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Seward (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We do not keep art unless both the subject and the artist are themselves notable. I think these are marginal on both counts. I suggest you return here when you have an article on WP:EN (written, as required there, by someone entirely independent of you) or other evidence that you are using these for more than just advertising. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A small correction, if I may: Of course we also keep art by notable artists where the subject isn't notable or even unknown (like in en:Portrait of a Man (Rembrandt, New York)). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above, most of the files mentioned above have not been deleted from Commons, but merely removed from a WP/EN article. It is likely that two of the red links above actually should be:

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtswidrig entfernte Bilder in "Kundelfingen" und "Mühle Willisdorf" wieder herstellenerstellen. Siehe User talk: Cunolf

Auf Vorschlag von Gestumblindi (s unten, aus User talk: Cunolf) wende ich mit der Bitte an sie, alle entfernten Bilder der o erw Artikel nun definitiv wieder herzustellen. Die einzelnen Bildlisten mit Begründungen sind in den Diskussionen in User talk: Cunolf, vor der Eingabe von Gestumblindie, ausführlich ersichtlich. Nun nach veschiedenen Eingaben bitte ich sie eingehend, um Umsetzung. Danke; Gruss Cunolf--Cunolf (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years Hallo Didym und Cunolf; Cunolf hat sich in dieser Sache an Wikimedia CH gewandt, WMCH seinerseits hat mich als Commons-Admin kontaktiert und mich gefragt, ob ich mir die Sache mal anschauen kann. Soviel ich sehe, wären das, soweit anwendbar, eher Fälle für {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}}, da sich Cunolf auf diese Bestimmung beruft (Urheberrechtsgesetz Art. 29, Absatz 2a bis: Schutz für Fotografien "ohne individuellen Charakter" nur für 50 Jahre nach Herstellung). Das Problem ist, dass man über den "individuellen Charakter" im Einzelfall streiten kann, das ist nicht so einfach wie der Ablauf des Urheberrechts 70 Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers bei Werken mit individuellem Charakter. Bis zur Einführung dieses Schutzes 2020 waren Fotos ohne "individuellen Charakter" in der Schweiz ja gar nicht geschützt, und das Bundesgericht ist sehr weit darin gegangen, siehe en:Copyright_law_of_Switzerland#Lack_of_originality - selbst diesem Foto des mit Aktenbänden posierenden Wachmanns Meili wurde der individuelle Charakter abgesprochen, es war also nach damaliger Rechtslage in der Schweiz gar nicht geschützt (jetzt bis 2047, da es 1997 entstanden ist). Für einen formal korrekten Ablauf möchte ich Cunolf vorschlagen, über Commons:Undeletion requests alle Fotos aufzuführen, die aus seiner Sicht wiederhergestellt werden sollten, mit der jeweiligen Begründung und welche Lizenz anzuwenden sei (in diesem Fall wohl eben meistens {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}}). Gestumblindi (Diskussion) 15:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Danke Gestumbindi für deinen Vorschlag, den ich befolgen werde. Die entsprechende Liste mit Begründung ist übrigens auf dieser Seite weiter oben bereits hinreichend ersichtlich. Sollte doch eigentlich klar sein. Gruss Cunolf Cunolf (Diskussion) 12:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose No images are named. User:Cunolf has a number of deleted images:

File:KH Aquarell Hulftegger v Westen.jpg oil painting still under Swiss and URRA copyright.
File:Mähdrescher Marsey Harris Clipper.jpg photograph, also still under both copyrights.
File:KH Quellabfluss vor 1909 hoche Aufl.jpg. photo or painting, possibly PD
File:KH Dampfdreschsatz Basadingen.pdf line drawings. Probably under URAA copyright.
File:MW Fam. Bachmann 1947.jpg 1947 family photo. Probably under URAA copyright. Scope?

And several others. Cunolf claimed that he was the actual photographer of all of these, which is impossible for some, improbable for others. It is hard, therefore, to be sure that what he says is accurate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to Cunolf which he quotes above was to request undeletion for the images he thinks should be restored as {{PD-Switzerland-photo-non-individual-50-years}} (or other applicable license) listing each image individually with a reasoning and the proposed license ("über Commons:Undeletion requests alle Fotos aufzuführen, die aus seiner Sicht wiederhergestellt werden sollten, mit der jeweiligen Begründung und welche Lizenz anzuwenden sei"). This he needs to do himself. I agree that this blanket undeletion request is insufficient, as at least some of the deleted photos will not be eligible for restoration even under the proposed "50 years after creation for photos without individual character" Swiss regulation, as per Jim's examples. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AgiaParaskeviLogo.webp

This file falls under Paragraph 5 of Article II, Law 2121 of 1993 in my opinion, as it is used in an administrative text, namely this (municipal council minutes) Miraitowa963 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd you deleted this and @Yann you pointed it out. Your business now Miraitowa963 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The Terms of Use page for the web site calls out a CC BY-SA 3.0 license for the whole site. The only exception is third party IP, which this is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fall under Law 2121, Art 2 Par 5 though? I need such information for other things as well Miraitowa963 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have neither the time nor the expertise to interpret how laws in various countries interact with works except as they directly affect copyright. The exception to copyright for administrative works varies from country to country and the question of whether this logo falls under an exception for administrative texts is not something that should be addressed using Google Translate. A logo is not a text, but the Greek word may be broader than that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward I read it in Greek, as it is my native language. It mentions only text, but images such as the coat of arms of Greece are available in Commons under such a provision. Miraitowa963 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You will learn, as you gather more experience here, there are many images here that should not be kept. A CoA or logo is certainly not text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Template:PD-GreekGov is technically wrong, if we assume it only applies to text and not images included in such documents Miraitowa963 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Triangle of Everything.png/gallery

This page was being used on the description page of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triangle_of_everything_simplified_triangle_of_everything_-_No_cutouts.png to link all variants of the same image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avsa (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Files do not have subpages. If this page is necessary, it might be permitted as an ordinary Gallery. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore all of my uploaded photos under PlanCPills

I am requesting that all of the photos I uploaded recently as user name plancpills be restored.

I am new to WikiCommons but would like to use it to share a a portion of our research on the availability of abortion pills by mail in the United States. We have been doing this research since 2013, have published our results in peer reviewed journals, and are considered experts on abortion by mail in the United States. You can learn more about our research at plancpills dot org/about/research. Part of our research includes photographs of the types of pills that we have received through our research about how people in the US access abortion pills by mail. We would like to share some of these photos on WikiCommons to give people examples of what types of pills exist in the US market and what they look like. These photos are also intended to be available to accompany social posts or other media writing about access to safe abortion in the United States. Why is this important? Because people need information about reliable ways to access abortion pills when they are being denied access by politicians and photographs are a way to help people understand what is available and what real pills look like. And, because restrictions on access to abortion harm women. Providing transparent information about safe access to abortion is a harm reduction strategy that can be lifesaving.

I do not know the exact file names I uploaded, but all were tagged under "Abortion", "Medical abortion", "mifepristone", and "Misoprostol". All were uploaded within the past week. There are probably 6-8 files.

Initially, my user page was tagged as spam (we were mistaken for a pill seller--we are not. We do research and share information. We do not sell anything.). Then my second attempt at a user page was deleted under the speedy deletion rules. I have been in conversation with two people who have helped me edit the page to an acceptable sentence. But, now I need help getting the photographs restored.

Can you please help me restore the images? I am not a digital native, so many of the instructions on WikiCommons, though intended to be clear and helpful, do not make sense to me. I hope I am completing this request correctly.

thanks,

Elisa Wells, plancpills Plancpills (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In order to enable the discussion, I undeleted this example: File:Abortion Pill Pack MTP Kit.jpg. Ellywa (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I  Support undeletion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:KBD Talent Forge logo - Recruitment and staffing agency India.png

File:KBD Talent Forge logo - Recruitment and staffing agency India.png – Request to undelete


File in question: File:KBD Talent Forge logo - Recruitment and staffing agency India.png


Reason for undelete:

This is the official logo of KBD Talent Forge, India. It is released under a free license (CC BY-SA 4.0) for educational and informational use.

The logo is essential for the company’s Wikimedia profile and related articles. Deleting it would remove a key reference for documentation and visibility.


Balkrushnaa (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it being used on any Wikimedia project, and this company might not be notable. Abzeronow (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right. The file isn’t used on any Wikimedia project, and KBD Talent Forge may not meet notability guidelines. Commons generally requires files to be used on a notable Wikimedia page.Hence we keep Freefree license (CC BY-SA 4.0) educational and informational use Once we publish independent article then we will use wiki project its in under Process. Balkrushnaa (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The file is sufficiently notable and may be used on the KBD Talent Forge's Wikidata page.
I checked the company's website (which I can't link for some weird reason) and haven't found any mention of Creative Commons licenses. If you are a representative of the company or are affiliated with it (judging from your usage of "we"), please send a permission letter by following instructions written here: Commons:VRT/CONSENT. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 12:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The company has a Wikidata page, this should be sufficient to keep the file. Also, Wikimedia Commons' notability is not as strict as, say, Wikipedia's. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 12:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Minecraft Live Logo.png

Logo is below TOO per consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png.

See also: COM:TOO Sweden and Category:Logos of Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gordon Hoffmann 2024.jpg

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung und um Anpassung des Copyrights.

Bei Fragen gerne melden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frk 95 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The terms of use at the source of this image allows only "private, personal use of an individual user." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ONN Radio Logo.png

The ONN Radio Logo is the logo for the Ohio News Network Radio organization. It is a public facing logo, such as available for any media company, and is an inalienable part of their brand and a way to represent the ONN page. It's use on Wikipedia would easily be covered by fair use. If there is some other way to upload this, can some explain in a simple way? There are pages and pages of minutia that is incredibly confusing for uploading images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squirrel592 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Fair use in not legal here, but this logo is below the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that mean exactly? How can I get the logo online for use on Wikipedia? Squirrel592 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That means that one of our colleagues will soon reach the same conclusion and restore the image -- as a general rule, two of us should agree before restoring. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Пётр Ретвицкий и Александр Таранец 1959.png – restoration of historical photo

This file is not AI-generated.

It is a scan of a real historical photograph (circa 1950s), which was digitally restored using AI-based tools (denoise, contrast enhancement, minor upscale).

The restoration did not introduce new elements or alter identities. All facial features and composition come from the original photograph.

If necessary, I can provide the original unprocessed scan for verification.

Therefore, this file should be considered a restoration of a historical photograph, not synthetic AI content.

I kindly ask to reconsider the deletion.

Original scan available upon request. https://s1.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2026/03/e3aa9c8319735b8cb30ad7bfda2ce74f.png Sent Peter (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image cited above and the deleted image are completely different -- different clothing, different expressions. We do not keep AI images when originals are available. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerhard Stemmler.jpg

The file is not protected and there is an okay by the author... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiu77 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file was deleted in 2015. The source page is now a 404 error and the source site has "© 2026 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie e. V. (DGPs)". There is no evidence of a free license and no license review was requested after the upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:G0XQwPJXoAAtY85 (1).jpg.jpg

I am the person who took this photo and in the comment regarding the deletion "This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://x.com/i/status/1965206343553581565", this tweet is a tweet that I made. That's my X account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exokaifan (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: the post, regardless of copyright status, does not appear to help Wikimedia Commons; the pictures are pretty low-res
I see from Special:CA/Exokaifan that OP also has a clear, though undisclosed, conflict of interest with the Wikipedia article Kai (entertainer, born 1994) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruce Elliot Plummer, 2025.png

This image is not subject to any copyright because the picture was not taken professionally, nor was it licensed under any copyright law prohibiting it's usage in any way. It is marked as free use, and the picture was taken casually. The labels were accidentally marked contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthemius (talk • contribs) 02:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All photographs these days are copyrighted unless copyright is specifically waived in writing or given an explicit free license. Abzeronow (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grant Report SUPER SIGN.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: : Well this is awkward. I accidentally uploaded that file while mass exporting Meta files, and so I marked it for deletion as it was out of scope. Between the time of marking it for deletion and it actually getting deleted though, the local copy was deleted, meaning there is now a big ugly redlink in the transcluding page. Can someone temporarily restore the file so I can reupload it onto Meta‐wiki? ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 05:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ottmar Mergenthaler bust.jpg

This bust is now public domain in 2022, after previously deleted for 12 years. Absolutiva 09:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dabudai logo.png

I request undeletion of this file.

I am the copyright holder or an authorized representative of the copyright holder. I have sent a permission statement to VRT at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming release under a free license acceptable on Wikimedia Commons.

The file is intended for identification of the brand in an encyclopedic context, not for advertising.

Thank you. Kyryll Poltavets (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Out of scope regardless of copyright status. Thuresson (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Also note that the file was uploaded with "unknown author". It is impossible for the uploader to both own the copyright and not know who the author is, so we cannot believe anything said here or to VRT. The requester, Kyryll Poltavets, is a blocked sock of the uploader, User:Dabudai. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"