Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

62 copyvios • 192 duplicates • 3 adverts • 95 selfies • 59 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.

I propose to:

• Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
• Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.

• First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
• Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
• There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.

To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!

In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).

While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM ^(t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.

I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:

• Ajdovscina
• Beltinci
• Benedikt
• Bistrica ob Sotli
• Bled
• Bloke
• Bohinj

@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.

As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.

As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.

And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM ^(t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.

Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).

I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored).jpg
• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored 2).jpg

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

But if they were produced for AP and not first published in Russia, that's irrelevant. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We need to know if it was published in Soviet Union (we know it was in USA). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Looney Tunes YouTube Copyright Claim.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Looney Tunes YouTube Copyright Claim.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I don't remember what was in this picture, but was there any copyvio? Because this was not one of the incriminated clips that were deleted altogether, and it could serve an educational purpose.

If it wasn't a copyvio, or if it's debatable per Commons:De minimis, maybe we should temporarily restore it for the aim of the debate. Wikisquack (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Not de mimimis, Daffy Duck and Speedy Gonzales are clearly recognizable from the thumbnail and both are copyrighted characters. Abzeronow (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In order to see this, you must go to the history of the redirect. As noted by Abzeronow, it is clearly a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Generated Image December 14, 2025 - 1 20PM.jpg was improperly deleted as a personal image (F10)

I had used this deleted image as an encyclopedic illustration in en:Primordial black hole and so it should not have been deleted under criteria F10. I'm new here, so please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something. Splargle (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You name the author as "Nano Bannana Pro 3" so the claim that you are the author (your use of {{Own}}) is not correct and the upload is a copyright violation. Although that problem can be cured by a license from Nano Bannana Pro 3, we do not keep art works created by people who are not themselves notable. That is particularly true of images created by AI. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Under the latest ruling by the US Copyright Office, purely AI-generated images first published in the US are {{PD-ineligible}}, so there's no copyright issue. There's still the issue that it's AI-generated. Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Logo WFV04.png

I am requesting that File:Logo WFV04.png be restored to the Commons and placed under a Template:PD-textlogo + Template:Trademark license. It is a simple logo comprised strictly only of simple geometric shapes and text. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The text is in the center is not a standard text font though. Abzeronow (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

1. The text in the centre is not complex enough to be above TOO;
2. COM:TOO Germany contains a clear example of a logo being denied protections regardless of it having stylised text
3. It is my understanding, based on articles such as this, that Monster energy drink were denied protection in German courts for their brand's font/typeface in 2024/2025. This also shows that stylised fonts/typeface do not push a logo above TOO in Germany. The Monster font is arguably more complex/stylised than the one featured in File:Logo WFV04.png.

Based on the above, I don't think there should be an issue with restoring File:Logo WFV04.png. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG

A file that was deleted 2009 (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG). The reason given at the time was that the file is public domain in the US, but not yet in Germany. Sixteen years have passed since then, and the image is public domain since 2011. The license would need to be changed accordingly to {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} after restoration. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment: On Commons, the file was uploaded on 27 July 2008 and it was deleted on 19 February 2009. On en.wikipedia, it was uploaded on 19 February 2009 [5] and it was deleted on 23 July 2014, per this deletion discussion, apparently on the basis submitted by Stefan2 that the copyright holder could be the photographer, even if working for the German government. If the deletion reason of en.wikipedia is correct (or per the precautionary principle), then the photo might be under copyright in the U.S. In the meantime, another copy was uploaded to Commons on 12 September 2011, under the claim of being a work created by an employee of the U.S. government. Not sure what to make of all that. Just mentioning it so it can be addressed if necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose A 1941 image must still have been under copyright in either Russia or Germany on the URAA date, so it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2037. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Team Grahaa SOLARAS.png

Hello,

I request the undeletion of File:Team Grahaa SOLARAS.png.

I am Malaya Kumar Biswal M, Director of Grahaa Space, and I am the original copyright holder of this image. I hold all necessary rights to publish and distribute this file and am willing to release it under a free license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons (such as CC BY-SA 4.0).

If the deletion was due to licensing or permission concerns, I can:

Re-upload the file with a correct free license declaration, and

Provide formal permission via OTRS / VRTS if required.

The image is intended for encyclopedic use to illustrate Grahaa Space’s SOLARAS mission team, and it does not violate copyright, privacy, or promotional content policies.

Kindly advise on the appropriate steps needed to proceed with restoration.

Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:SOLARAS S22.png

Hello,

I request the undeletion of File:SOLARAS S22.png.

I am Malaya Kumar Biswal M, Director of Grahaa Space, and I am the original copyright holder of this image. I hold all necessary rights to publish and distribute this file and am willing to release it under a free license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons (such as CC BY-SA 4.0).

If the deletion was due to licensing or permission concerns, I can:

Re-upload the file with a correct free license declaration, and

Provide formal permission via OTRS / VRTS if required.

The image is intended for encyclopedic use to illustrate Grahaa Space’s SOLARAS mission team, and it does not violate copyright, privacy, or promotional content policies.

Kindly advise on the appropriate steps needed to proceed with restoration.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards, Malaya Kumar Biswal M Director, Grahaa Space — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaya Kumar Biswal M (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose First, please note that it is always a serious violation of Commons rules to reload an image that has been deleted. DON'T EVER DO IT!

Second, holding a license "to publish and distribute this file" does not give you the right to allow others to freely use and distribute the file. That right is rarely included in standard licenses from photographers.

Third, the file was found elsewhere on the Web without a free license, so policy requires that either the actual photographer send a free license using VRT or you send a free license together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer allowing you to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Miscellaneous photos hosted by NWS Grand Forks

Brief background is needed here: Back in 2024, an RFC deprecated {{PD-NWS}} which resulted in over 250 deletion discussions occurring (see Category:National Weather Service-related deletion requests), with 231 resulting in deletes and over 30+ Keeps/Withdrawns. Following the deprecation/RFC, {{PD-NWS-employee}} was created to include warnings. One of those 250+ deletion discussions was Commons:Deletion requests/Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske).

Fast forward to 2025, one of the images deleted from that DR above was reuploaded. It was sent back to DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF5 east of Parkersburg.png), however, following discussion from multiple editors, including a non-closing administrator, the previous DR and that previous DR rational was overturned with the closing reasoning: “no valid reason for deletion”.

The original file was deleted under the rational that, while confirmed to have been taken by a U.S. government employee, they may have been off-duty. This was overturned (no new VRT information).

The three files in Commons:Deletion requests/Miscellaneous photos hosted by NWS Grand Forks were deleted under identical rationals to the now-overturned DR. So, following suit, I am requesting this DR be overturned and all three files be restored. Note that the NWS confirms they were taken by NWS employees in VRT ticket:2024110510012001. WeatherWriter (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Support I was the Admin who kept the file cited above. While it is obvious that a photo taken on the ground by a USAF jet pilot is not in the line of duty, that is not anywhere near as obvious in the case of Federal employees whose duty is to inform the public. I kept the cited image on the grounds that part of the duty of a NWS employee is to inform the public about the weather and therefore anything they write or photograph that concerns weather is in the line of duty. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: I've reversed my deletion per request and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Destinus Hornet 30 au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg

Also:

• File:Destinus Hornet au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg
• File:Maquette d'un moteur-fusée de Sirius Space Services au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg
• File:Maquette du moteur-fusée Navier de Latitude sur son pas de tir au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg

Hello everyone, I'm requesting the restoration of files

1. File:Destinus Hornet 30 au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg
2. File:Destinus Hornet au Salon du Bourget 2025 1.jpg
3. File:Maquette d'un moteur-fusée de Sirius Space Services au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg
4. File:Maquette du moteur-fusée Navier de Latitude sur son pas de tir au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg, which are not models but devices. Thank you in advance. Best regards. Artvill (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the french word "maquette" appearing in several of these file names literally means "model". The Destinus drones indeed may be the actual devices, but I tend to expect that a producer of military drones would rather exhibit life-size models of his creations instead of the actual machines for security purposes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. These are likely full size models -- much cheaper and safer than the real thing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No, in this Air Show, models and reald devices are featured. ~2025-41156-70 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I am not an expert, but File:Maquette du moteur-fusée Navier de Latitude sur son pas de tir au Salon du Bourget 2025.jpg seems to be the real thing. Yann (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

A full size model should look like the real thing, but we don't know what's inside. Also I note that this is highly finished and all stainless steel, which seems odd for a piece that will be used once. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: le nom du fichier dit carrément que c'est une maquette, comment une maquette peut être le vrai engin?!

Additional question: there's an article, fr:Zéphyr (fusée) providing a range for the size of the actual rocket engine. I do not recall if there were any references in the image from which one could deduce the size of the depicted device, but an engine made for a 19m rocket is quite probably larger than comfortable to fit into an exhibition stand. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@User:Grand-Duc Le nom du fichier est une erreur : pour rappel, c'est moi qui l'ai donné. Il y a aussi une autre erreur de copier coller avec "sur son pas de tir". Quant à la taille du moteur (7 moteur sur un disque de 1,5 m de diamètre), elle est cohérente. Artvill (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Restore File:67 dance.webm minus violating audio

According to its list of attributions, the WP25 Anthem video for Wikipedia's 25h anniversary celebration incorporates the deleted file File:67 dance.webm. The deletion log for that file states “The background song is not under a free license”.

Since the WP25 Anthem video has its own sound track, hopefully only non-violating video from the deleted file was used, and no audio.

However, the sole attribution in the list of attributions is the link to that file (all other fields in that entry are empty). So with the file deleted, there is no more valid form of attribution, creating a licence violation (unless the original was public domain).

It would be particularly embarrassing for such a licence violation to exist in Wikimedia's own anthem video for Wikipedia's 25th anniversary celebration. Therefore it seems important to restore this file promptly, minus the offending audio.

See also the prior discussion.

Thank you for your time. – McDutchie (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

To the undeletion admin, if needed, I am willing to help re-uploading the video without the audio, then the original version can be revdeled. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The subject piece is a three second video of a boy juggling air, at about 0:27 into the WP25 video. I would just add a note in the long list of attributions that it was deleted for copyvio audio, but that the video was licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:At New York City 2024 054.jpg

This is a FoP case of a Bansky work in the US. The general discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hammer Boy by Banksy that covered a few photos of the artwork. With my photo, I blanked out the artwork, but there was discussion about whether there is residual copyright in the overall shape. I'd be happy to change to using rectangles for the blanking out, but the deleting admin, @Jameslwoodward, points out that this may raise scope questions. I think it would be in scope to show how the artwork is being preserved, and its context and position, as well as being a clear indicator to others that there are copyright concerns here and they shouldn't try to upload their photos of the work. I'm bringing this here as I think it's an interesting question that I think could do with additional input - with thanks to the participants of the discussion and the closing admin. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

With courtesy pings to @The Squirrel Conspiracy, Robert Flogaus-Faust, and Grand-Duc: from the discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Mike did a very nice job of making a good silhouette of the boy's image, but I deleted it because I believe that even the silhouette of the boy wielding the hammer would have a copyright. On my talk page I suggested that one could use a rectangle to blank the image and therefore avoid copyright problems, but asked if the remaining image would be useful -- I think not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm neutral on whether the silhouette violates copyright but I do think it's out of scope. A picture of the art with the art covered up isn't useful. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Tom Monahan 2025.jpg

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

I’d like to confirm the company Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. is the copyright holder of this image file. A formal copyright release has been sent to VRT by the copyright holder under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike- 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

The VRT Ticket Number is 2025121710006401. Please restore the file so the VRT agent can process the permission.

Thank you!

--TheBlueOwl (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@TheBlueOwl: If and when permission is approved, a VRT agent will undelete or request undeletion of the file. Abzeronow (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Whake.jpg

This is a photo I created myself, that's fine.

File:Ansambel Davka.jpg

The author of the photo (Ilja Sundelevitš) has sent permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please restore the file after VRT confirmation.

File:Jordi Savall Tallinn WEB-1.jpg

The author of the photo (Ilja Sundelevitš) has sent permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please restore the file after VRT confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry598624 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Bnei Teiman from Kiryat Ono, Tallinn 2 WEB.jpg

The author of the photo (Ilja Sundelevitš) has sent permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please restore the file after VRT confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry598624 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Bruto_Mazzolani,_Borgo_di_Lierna_Lago_di_Como.jpg

Hello, this cluster of files was deleted with reason "No license since 25 February 2025":

• File:Bruto_Mazzolani,_Borgo_di_Lierna_Lago_di_Como.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani, Bosco di Lierna Lago di Como, 30x40 cm.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani, Lavandaie a Lierna, 100x140.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani (Ferrara 1880-Milano 1949) Lierna vede la punta di Bellagio Lago di Como, Cm.30 X 23.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani (Ferrara 1880-Milano 1949) Borgo di Lierna.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani (Ferrara 1880-Milano 1949) Costa di Lierna.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani (Ferrara 1880-Milano 1949) Lierna Lago di Como.jpg
• File:Bruto Mazzolani (Ferrara 1880-Milano 1949) Lierna vista su Bellagio.jpg

Please consider undelete them, the right licence to add is {{PD-old-auto-expired |deathyear= 1949}}, author is {{Creator:Bruto_Mazzolani}}.--Una tantum (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)