Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.

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

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Files in Category:Documents from the US Naval Postgraduate School Library/reserved

496 Files

These files were deleted summarily, even though many of them are in the public domain owing to age. I ask that they all be undeleted temporarily, so that I may more easily determine the copyright status of the works. I could search for the records elsewhere, but that is very tedious (especially with so many works), so I ask that they be undeleted anyway to reduce unnecessary work on my part. As an example, File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf was published in 1984 and is PD-US-1978-89. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea. and Yann: Undeleted as per request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf

Per the followup comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filmwise condensation of steam on low integral-finned tubes. (IA filmwisecondensa00geor).pdf, some doubts were raised as to the nature of 'copyright' status of the work. The claim is that as 1984 work without an additional license it might qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}} as there wasn't an additional license/ registration within 5 years. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. If there were a copyright notice, it would be near the bottom of the reverse side of the title page. Unfortunately, on that page, only the top half was scanned by Google, so we don't actually know that there was no notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TE(æ)A,ea., have you seen the whole page, without the redaction, or are you just guessing that there is no copyright notice? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Gagarin and Visionary Crytek.webp and File:Yuriy Besarab on car 2007.webp

This is my works (or my father's works, to be precise). You can even clearly see that the first one is a selfie. Also, the other resource (S.T.A.L.K.E.R. wiki) have a footer, and you can read there "everything is under the CC licence".

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it is your father's work, then your father must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I request the restoration of the file, they are only letters and the flame are geometric figures (specifically ovals), it does not exceed the threshold of originality.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aurelio de Sandoval: Can you prove that similar complexity logos are considered PD in Russia? Ankry (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry: I do not understand your question.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the deletion request. We need to address the deletion rationale if undeleting an image deleted through DR. Ankry (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry: Yes, look at the category there are images of the Gazprom company and they are in PD.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry: According to it was because the flame of the logo was complex, but if you look closely at the flame they are only ovals, it does not exceed the threshold of originality.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 22:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so obvious. From COM:TOO Russia: Simple result (consisted of simple geometric shapes and / or text) of creative work (creative human activity) is copyrightable. Ankry (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Ankry says, the threshold of originality is very low in Russia, so the gas flame almost certainly has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Wikipedia,

The above jpeg file (photograph of the subject) was deleted because the owner of the photograph (subject's daughter) was a minor and did not use an email. Hence, she could not use claim ownership. The image was used with the subject's approval as a parent. However, the daughter is now able to claim ownership for the photograph. As such, we request Wikipedia to undelete the file.

with regards

--Mxdartist (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Himadri S. Dhar 25 Sep 2022, 11:27 AM ISTReply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, it was deleted because there was no valid license. The named photographer is the subject and it is clearly not a selfie. In order for it to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mxdartist: So, your daughter should claim ownership and license the image according to Commons:VRT. There should be no further problems if that is done, and the file will then be undeleted.
(That message could have been sent earlier, I don't see any problem in a minor's custodian sending such an e-mail on their behalf, with their consent. Only if the author is too small to give such consent is there a problem, and that age could of course vary by jurisdiction.)
LPfi (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. A message from the custodian (also the subject in this case) was duly rejected by Wikipedia from some reason. Go figure. In any case, I will request a VRT. Mxdartist (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what your jurisdiction is, in some jurisdictions such arrangements might not be valid. –LPfi (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Davud Ordubadli.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore the photo of Davud Ordubadli, he is my grand-father and I created the article about him. I want his photo to be shown in the article. The photo from the family archive is used. Paliyeva (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I note that you claimed that you were the actual photographer using {{Own}}. Since that is obviously not the case, you should be aware that such claims are a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.
The image appears to be a professional portrait. It is possible, but very unlikely, that it is no longer under copyright. That would depend on when and where it was first published. Since he lived 1930-2011 it is very unlikely that any image of him as an adult is free of copyright. You should be aware that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right remains with the photographer or his heirs unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Charles Vanden Bulck (1904-1962) portrait.jpg

This photo is made in 1943 and according to a family member made by US military personnel and therefore in PD per Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army. The subject of the photo, nl:Charles Vanden Bulck was working at the time for the en:Manhattan Project. Reason for the request, this discussion on NL-WP. The photo can imho be undeleted, and the mentioned template can be added to the file page. Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was deleted because it appears at without a free license. {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} is problematic for two reasons. First, "according to a family member" is weak evidence of the provenance of the photo and, second, the template requires that the photograph was taken "as part of [the photographer's] official duties". This appears to be a casual snapshot, not an official photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim,
1) Early this summer the picture was ok as being at least 70 years old until I feared 'someone' would delete it and I mentioned that it also existed in the cited publication after which someone abused this to deleted it. Receiving an existing picture from the interviewee does not transfer any rights. Neither the picture nor the reproduction refere to a photographer. As they did not receive any complaints why would Wikipedia? This Wilipedia reasoning really is so weird!
2) From personal experience I know it is not allowed to take pictures in military installations so check this war time picture at Oak Ridge Therefor it is an official military picture or an 'illigal' family one. His son transfered public use of the family documents to CMOR.
3) Your wording "appears to be" is even weaker than a family statement. Do the pictures of generals Kenneth Nichols and Lesie Grooves 'appear' to be taken "as part of offcial duties"?
For some reason I see a lot of subjective excuses so I hope we can settle this in an honest and objective way. Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is quite safe that a 1943 picture taken in high security area during one of the most secret project in the middle of the WW2 to be an official photograph, not a personal snapshot. Anyone others than official photographers were certainly not allowed to take picture there, or even enter the premises with a camera, at that time. Yann (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where can I find the evidence that the photo was taken in 1943 while his working for the Manhattan Project and not later and/or elsewhere? Gouwenaar (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a valid question, but at least this is a credible claim. Someone more familiar with this may have further idea based on the uniform and the map on the background. Yann (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Harry Van den Bulck: , the action of King of Hearts means that the image has been temporarily undeleted, but there will be a longer discussion about the image. In Dutch: De foto is tijdelijk teruggeplaatst, maar er is een nieuw "Deletion request" gemaakt, zodat er kan worden besproken of de foto behouden kan worden of toch verwijderd moet worden vanwege de auteursrechten. In eerste instantie is de foto verwijderd via een andere procedure, de snelle verwijdering. Een "administrator" zal de eindafweging maken. Met vriendelijke groet, Ellywa (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an obvious case, so converting from speedy to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Vanden Bulck (1904-1962) portrait.jpg. King of ♥ 23:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Margaret Thatcher con Vicente Blanco Gaspar.jpg

VRT agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2022092510003982 regarding File:Margaret Thatcher con Vicente Blanco Gaspar.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: as requested. --Ellywa (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like to incorporate this file in an article I am posting.--Rtakele (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Rebecca Takele 9/26/2022--Rtakele (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stock Moe LLC LOGO.png

I am requesting the undeletion of File:Stock Moe LLC LOGO.png It was incorrectly marked as a 'files and pages created as advertisements' This logo is used on the home page of our website, (at the bottom) We do not use this logo in any sort of advertising. Our company does not do any advertising or promotions using a logo because we are a company whose main business is on YouTube. This is a logo that is strictly used on the home page of our website.

Thank you. --StockMoeMrsMoe (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I request for undeletion of the photo. Please know that the photo is mine, I took the photo of the famous Pinay Actress. I am the photograher of that photo please consider. Thank you! (ceri)