Last modified on 15 March 2015, at 11:52

Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

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.

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.

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:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image: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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012710019552 received from the subject's son claiming copyright is verbally transferred to him from the photographers who are colleagues of his father. He used the word "formally"; but as he can't recall their names I assume it is verbally. Unable to verify the email address; so collected a signed document. Subject deceased on 2002. Jee 15:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it. Copyright cannot be transferred verbally -- it requires a written agreement, and, since he does not know the names of the photographers, obviously he does not have a written agreement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
I restored these files. Jim, I think that's a bit too much unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I am not sure that the permission can apply to File:Dr Ernest Mercier nomination Lennoxville.jpg. {{PD-Canada}} applies to File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The man has a memory that three different copyright holders transferred copyright to him or his father more than 13 years ago. One of the three images is a newspaper clip from 1952. Quite aside from the fact that copyright law requires written transfers, can we really accept his assertion on any of them? I think this is a case where the son is willing to say anything to get his father's picture on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK fine. I deleted 2 files. Yann (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey @Jameslwoodward: you're quite right in asserting that we are trying to get those pictures on the encyclopedia. Now, we're doing our best to be honest as we fully believe in Wikimedia's mandate of respecting copyright laws and acting conservatively when ownership is contentious. I agree with you on the picture of the newspaper clipping. However, we do believe that the picture File:Dr Ernest Mercier Cuba.jpg was taken at the request of the subject and probably using his own photographic equipment. It is also very much possible that it was taken by a Cuban person (I'm not sure how they handle copyright under communist rule). Regardless, if there is a copyright holder, it is no longer feasible to find them. They are most likely long deceased or simply untraceable. Could you suggest any course of action? Thanks Tinss (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the file is probably not ok for Commons. See COM:PCP. In most cases, just because you are unable to discern a copyright holder of a creative work does not in fact mean that a copyright does not exist for said work -FASTILY 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Cuban copyright law is much the same as other signatories to the Berne Convention. Unfortunately, as Fastily suggests, "probably" and "most likely" are not good words here -- policy requires that you prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is freely licensed and without a written document from the photographer or a license from his heirs, that cannot be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Some countries have quite different rules than others, specially in Latin America. We don't have anything for Cuba in Commons:Copyright rules by territory, but the law is available here: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the current possessor of the picture to give me a snapshot of the back of the photo to see if it will provide any clues as to its origin. That being said, I've taken a look a the cuban copyright laws as outlined by the text Yann linked to and it appears that copyright is valid for 25 years after the death of the author unless explicitly transferred to its heirs. However, the following will most likely be of interest to you guys:
Capitulo VII: de las limitacions del derecho de autor, Seccion I: de la utilizacion de une obra sin consentimiento del autor y sin renumeracion, Articulo 38: reproducir une obra por un procedimiento fortogràfico otro analogo, cuando la reproduciòn la realice une biblioteca, un centro de documentacion, una institucion cientifica o un establecimiento de ensenanza, y siempre que se haga con caracter non lucrativo y que la cantidad de ejemplares se limite estrictamente a las necessidades de una actividad especifica.
In English, it says that copyrighted works can be used in an educational context without the consent of the author. This sort of qualifies as fair use in my opinion, which is not permitted on commons, but could be of use to individual wikies.
Tinss (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What would be most useful is: What is the term for anonymous works? Are there special conditions for photographs? (often different than for other works). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


žaloba - judgement - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Produkce (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)

You need to state the reasons why you think the deletion should be undone. Two words and a URI aren't going to be enough. Use your words! LX (talk, contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
And it is a Google aerial image, which makes it a clear copyright violation, so no matter what you say, it is not going to be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done blatant copyvio -FASTILY 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Christen Gerhart.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Christen Gerhart (the subject of the picture) herself e-mailed me the file, telling me that she owned it, then granting me the copyright for the file in an email dated Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:42 PM, with the following statement:

"Yes, that's the correct time and date for the photo. Here's the authorization: I, Christen Gerhart, the owner and holder of the copyright to the attached image X.JPG, do hereby grant its copyright to Mark William Renton."

The prejudiced conclusion that I violated a copyright and presumptuous deletion of the image, in spite of my uploading copyright statement, is heavy-handed and seems to violate the presumption of good faith. My Wikipedia username is mwr0; you can contact me there. Mwr0 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mwr0: Such grants of permissions need to be forwarded to OTRS so they can be verified and archived, then the OTRS team member will request undeletion. See COM:OTRS for details. Revent (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately we get our fair share of bad guys here, people who will say anything to get an image on Commons, so we require that third party licenses be verified through OTRS. The actual copyright holder must send a freelicense to OTRS -- forwarded license are not generally accepted.
Words like "prejudiced" and "presumptuous" are not helpful. You claimed that this image was "own work". Now you say that the copyright belonged to Christen Gerhart and that she transferred it to you. That raises two questions -- why you said it was your own work, when apparently it is the work of an unnamed photographer and how it is that Christen Gerhart owns the copyright when it is obviously not her work either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gaurav Chopra 0315.jpg

Please un delete this image. This image has been taken at a public or an award function which this actor has attended. It is under free licensing and there is no breach of copyright involved.--Jazz.291 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Every picture has a copyright by default. So we can't host this unless we have a permission from the photographer. Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


It is the photo of M Bhaskar, film director and producer, who founded Oscar Movies. There is no ambiguity in it. And the photo is not copyright protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWith a limited number of exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright. This work certainly does. Although the uploader claimed to be the author, that does not appear to be correct. It appears in several places on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, see, for example, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


It is the photo of Rajini Kanth from the Film Bairavi, directed by Oscar Movies M Bhaskar. You may do a google search and ascertain the fact. It is not copyright protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With a limited number of exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright. Both above and in the file description this image is said to be a still from the film Bairavi, which was released in 1978, so this will be under copyright until 2038..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)