Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UR)


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎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.

Commons deletion (policy)

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: 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

Watch View Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr Theatre

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt we can go on here without explanation how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran, especially concerning architecture. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As previously discussed, the architect's copyright only lasts 30 years in Iran. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A theatre cannot be something different than a work for hire (it's not the architect's personal house). As Yann said: the 30 years after creation rule holds. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What logic is that? If you hire someone to create a creative work for you, it frequently can be cheaper to not mess with work for hire, if you don't need the copyright (and a building is a big case where you might not care.) In the US, a building can not be work for hire; there's a list of things that can be, and architecture is not one of them. Iran is hard, because we don't have many good Persian speakers and I don't think they cribbed their copyright law from someone else like many other nations did. But let's not jump to conclusions without knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPG

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per previous discussion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Can theese cases be closed? Or maybe the above discussion should be moved to COM:VPC? It does not seem that any Iranian user is willing to help us to resolve these cases. So IMO, keeping them open here is pointless. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on COM:VPC. Very few people speaking Farsi and having a knowledge of Iranian copyright law are active, but Mhhossein said he will look into it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As Yann: 30 years after creation rule hold here. --Ruthven (msg) 08:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Manila skyline day.jpg

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per TagaSanPedroAko. Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{de minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  Neutral I have no opinion here. Another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose The buildings occupy approx 40% of the image, I think that is too much copyright content, if the photographer had included more water and sky - it might be a different answer - but the way it's cropped, highlights the buildings. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Davezelenka

Why was this and my other Christian artwork deleted? Strange. They have been used and accessed for free for years. This artwork is available copyright-free everywhere on the Internet. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This artwork is mine and should not have been deleted. It is available to users anywhere on the internet at no cost. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please undelete. This file is my own work and is available copyright-free everywhere. Thank you.--Davezelenka (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

When did it begin that artists can't upload their own work to Wikimedia? I have sent an email to Commons:OTRS. They say that there's a 23 day wait. How do I "prove" it's my own work? It's not available for sale anywhere on the Internet. I provide it under CC share or which ever one I set it to originally 10 years ago. So, all artwork must have ownership proved through Commons:OTRS before it can be posted on Wikimedia? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davezelenka: Yes, if it's been deleted via a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, On the Commons:OTRS page, they state: When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: "I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted.

I created the painting myself. It hasn't been previously published, and I and the sole owner off its copyright. So, it seems that it is unnecessary for me to contact Commons:OTRS and that I'm wasting their time. This is the same for all three of the files listed above. Why do you doubt that I am the creator and owner of the copyright? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose First, according to the file description, at least one of the paintings has appeared at -- now a dead link. The first of them appears without a free license at Therefore, a free license from the creator using OTRS is required. More important, however, is the question of whether these works are within the scope of Commons. There is no WP article on Dave Zelenka and all of the Google hits appear to be self-promotion, not independent reviews or mentions. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Many people have reproduced the "Baptism of Christ" image, in print and on the Internet. If you Google Image search "Baptism of Christ," you'll find that numerous people have it posted on their websites. I have had numerous requests over the years and they always receive a "Yes, it's yours to use and reproduce." Besides this painting, I am not notable. However, this painting is widely used and has been reproduced over the years. I have made no money on it and want it continued to be available to anyone, which is why I am making a silly effort to keep it on Wikimedia. I don't market myself and try to keep a low profile. The only reason I have a personal website is to make a very small living. People post their photos on Wikimedia, what's the difference with a painting? It's a representation of something that happened long ago, an age without cameras. Here's just one more example of how it has been used over the years: It's been reprinted in a church in Ireland. Should I compile a list of the requests? Additionally, in regards to self-promotion: if self-promotion was my goal, why wouldn't I upload all my paintings to Wikimedia. I have many paintings that I have done over the years. I have only a few things uploaded within the Commons. Providing Baptism of Christ was about offering a freely available resource to others. I am also a United States Finalist in Wikimedia Science Competition (File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg). Should this artwork be deleted as well? I provide other items as well under CC ShareAlike. --Davezelenka (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The images were uploaded here by Davezelenka in 2007. I doubt you can point out an older version in the Internet. It is very likely that all external uses originate from Commons. However, we have still a COM:SCOPE problem here. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I note that Ciell has restored two of these after receiving a license via OTRS. That takes care of the license issue, but the question of scope remains open. I see nothing on WP or Google that suggests that this artist is anywhere close to our standard requirement for notability, which usually includes works in galleries or museums and critical reviews in recognized publications. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the permission is indeed complete: sorry I didn't look at the DR. I restore the deletion template on the images, since I have no opinion on the Scope of these images. Ciell (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been restored. Thank you. Please do not remove it again. I think the scope issue has to do with certain people not believing that modern Christian art is of any educational value. So, let me get this straight, in order to upload artwork to Wikimedia, I have to be notable? If you wish to remove it, then you should also recommend that my other artwork be removed, such as: File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg. This file recently became a finalist in Wikimedia's 2017 Science Competition. Philosophical differences should not play a role in scope. There is a theological story being told in the Baptism of Christ. Learn from Agustin what the waters represent. Learn from the Aquinas what the Trinity means. Find out what the Plurality of persons means in regards to the manhood and Godhead we see depicted in the artwork. There is a theological story being told. It is educational even if you disagree with the story. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons, and the world at large, makes a clear distinction between art and scientific illustration. Your illustration is excellent and like the many photographs on Commons, serves a distinct educational purpose. On the other hand, Commons has a clear policy of not keeping personal art -- that is, art from persons who are not themselves notable as artists. That generally means that their work must have been exhibited in museums or galleries or that they have had critical reviews in independent publications. You clearly do not qualify. Let me emphasize that this policy has nothing to do with the content of your work. It is easy to call out "prejudice" when the value of your work is questioned, but Commons policy applies to all personal art, no matter what the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Baptism of Christ was provided to the Alamosa Christian Reformed Church for display in 2005 on "permanent loan." I certainly do not use the Commons as my personal gallery, if I did, it would have hundreds of pieces of art. The Commons has only received a few that I feel are important to be made freely available to the public. As a graphic designer, my work has been displayed in many locations over the years. By doing a brief search through the Commons, I see many, many pieces of art by non-notable artists. Are all of those on the list for deletion? If my goal was self-promotion, I would have tried to upload all my work long ago. You will need to explain how this work does not meet the "scope" of the Commons. If I am required to be notable, how do you define that? If you think this work is not educational, then you'll need to research the baptism of Christ and see if the elements in the painting are educational. The only reason I call "prejudice" is because I see no other reason why this work would be removed. Maybe I missing it, but I can't find where I am required to be notable to upload art nor how notable is defined. I have seven other mathematical designs that I've uploaded to the Commons (out of hundreds), should we remove those as well? In 2017, one of my related math/art films was accepted into 2017 Bridges Short Film Festival, but I'm still not notable. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Illustration of notable events fall within Commons scope, specially when no good photographs of those event exists. Illustration of historical, religious or fictional notable events aren't different from scientific diagrams.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That is generally correct. However, we have several hundred images by notable artists in Category:Baptism of Jesus Christ. There is no reason here to violate our policy of not keeping images by non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done: We have the permission. The art and reproduction are of good quality. I see no harm in keeping these files. --Yann (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355 forgotten files

User:Materialscientist kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355, but a lot of files were deleted out of process and are hiding in the history of this page. Please restore the files listed at [1], [2], [3] & [4]. These files are not low quality and are not out of scope. Should be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose - these files were not deleted "out of the process". Till now, among the thousands of files only a handful have been identified as useful. Almost all the files are low quality and don't depict any notable thing. - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  Support There was at least one used image, many high quality and many with no replacement among nominated by User:Mitte27. Eg. File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg this image is used, is high quality and I do not see many replacemnts for it as declared. The DR nominations by this user require at least careful review. @Jcb: I thing they were not carefully reviewed while closing the DRs. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg = Category:Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol. —Mitte27 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mitte27: I do not see another photo of this ruined object there that could be used as a replacement. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A little off topic, but what does "Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol" mean? I'm pretty sure there's a better way to write that in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
ru:Самозахват земельных участков в Крыму. — Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb’s sysop doesn’t necessarily make all his actions “[due] process”, and his insistence to argue about this case—where he was clearly a party—shows partiality and wears off the community’s trust in any process to which Jcb is a party. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to state. Do you think I should not voice my opinion in this UDR, because I participated in the DR? Jcb (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I try to state that Jcb has authority to close a delreq, but shouldn’t wave it here, mistaking this authority alone for the [due] process. Jcb certainly has the right to voice opinion, like any other legitimate member, but it only has weight of an opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just like the opinion of everybody else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apparently you just want to be critical, without having a message? Jcb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Русский:   Oppose, Зачем я пытался систематизировать, категоризировать, переименовывать файлы данного автора? Зачем просил администратора расставить ботом соответствующую категорию? Потратил кучу времени, как выясняется, впустую. У данного автора есть множество хороших фото, однако многие должны быть удалены как бесполезные. Если вы считаете, что подобное тут нужно, то ок. Даже упомянутый File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg, чем полезен викискладу непонятно.— Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some are very likely in scope, but it's true that a significant part have a bad quality. Now they are deleted it's hard to sort the bad ones and the good ones. Much, much, much, much too big DR. Although I was firstly thinking at an undeletion, I now wonder if it is not to much work for little gain. Indeed I think Mitte27 really tried to sort the images, I agree that some cases are questionable but almost have bad quality and should stay deleted. Now that the harm is done, maybe administrators who want to restore some files, should do it on their own initiative only for the files that deserve it.
  Oppose Now that the harm is done, and because a significant part have a (very) bad quality. However I strongly   Support individual undeletions for some files on the initiative of administrators who wants that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I must agree with Christian here. Do you suggest particular files to be restored, or can we close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We should ask too to @Jcb: Are you agree that me or other administrators undelete a few selected images at our initiative? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. These files were not deleted for copyright issues. If some of them are somehow useful, undeletion should not be a big deal. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

G Force One

  CommentFile:Astronauts_disembark_G-Force_One_at_NASA_Ames.png was taken by my fiancée just following a parabolic microgravity flight at NASA Ames in Summer 2009. Several other photos from the same series are seen here. Matt Rutherford, our Media Producer, is seen kneeling in the background of this photo. Wiki User:bonnibellemv, aka Flickr bonnibella@Ames, herein credited as Commons Author: Bonnibelle Ventura [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , has been working in collaboration with several others in correspondence with OTRS over the last several weeks through @Majora: who has further detail and extended private information, to compile formal permissions to release several sets of photos drawn from travels and spaceflight training at NASA Ames, Johnson Space Center, and commercial astronaut training facilities around the country.

One of tickets


sent to OTRS contains file permissions for this photo in particular.

This is one of many files she forwarded licensing information on over the last month for release under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For additional context please please see : Talk page.

Please   Keep Thank you! — Altman (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This request was declined earlier today: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02#G_Force_One. If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if they verify the permission. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Roger that. I'll double check with OTRS and @Majora: to confirm on this file in particular. Thanks, — Altman (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Let's wait for an OTRS agent request while processing theese tickets. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I must have missed that one. There were quite a few files listed in that ticket. My mistake. Ankry, could you undelete File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png it is part of ticket:2018020410005487. Again. My mistake. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Done, for this one. Ankry (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! All set. --Majora (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Majora: and @Ankry: for getting it sorted. Now I've just got to get to my storage unit in Amsterdam and my backup hard drives to upload the original in full resolution. Soon! ... — Altmantalk 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Altman: I don't mean to rush you, but how long is that process likely to take?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Hahahahaha, longer than I'd like!—my Ducati shares the same space. It's just not right to keep it bottled up like that. A minor downside to otherwise exciting travel and adventures ... Thanks again — Altmantalk 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg

The uploader only replied to enquiries at AN/U after these files had been deleted for their confusing exif. The uploader does seem to be the copyright holder after all of File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg and File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User_MarkVII88 - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Files deleted by Sreejithk2000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Le fotografie risultano,essere di dominio pubblico e sono state prese dal sito ufficiale del Senato della Reupplica Italiana.Vi sono altre foto della stessa foto che sono onsiderate di dominio pubblico come per esempio:

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92) Mark 75 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Info To have them restored at least proper license template should be suggested. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:L'amour et la révolution.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license creative common 3 is present on the bottom right of the picture. DameFarnese (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Support That's correct, both in the copy on Commons and also in the original at .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Question what mean "creative common 3"? that can be a NC/ND license as well. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Support If it was NC/ND, the relevant icons would have been displayed   . So it's a regular CC-by 3.0. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not understand why this simple graphical map got deleted. It was created by VOA, so it was in the public domain. It had a source, a license tag, and other necessary information. I see no consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg to remove the file. Please note that User:Yann had only converted the speedy deletion request to a normal DR. The original request had been made by User:Mhhoseein who was also the only person casting a delete vote. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Support I think there is no reasonable doubt about VOA's authorship here. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All files from

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amir Habibollah Sayyari.jpg

To be honest I have no idea why this image was kept when Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Supreme Leader leading Eid al-Fitr prayer.jpg was deleted, but if Tasnim images with watermark are OK now I request undeletion of all of them. - Alexis Jazz 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Is there more than one? Please make a list. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes, I'm sure there are more. However, I cannot search deleted file pages. I have found the 5 files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali Khamenei in his office.jpg but there are probably more that were speedy deleted. I don't know if insource:"" (maybe you first need to enable a deleted pages category, I don't know how it works) shows deleted pages for you, if it does that would be the list. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Why did you keep this image Dyolf77? If it is because of the Tasnim watermark, we just had this discussion on another DR. Images taglined or do not fall under the Tasnim licensing scheme. Only photos directly by their photographers are under that license. That is the entire reason Tasnim is under a license review type situation. To make sure those images that are taglined as such are marked for deletion. INC also reviewed a bunch of photos that had to be deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from Apparently his sock reviewed this one. As far as I can tell, does not have a Creative Commons license. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I was confused as well, but I had linked a DR that said the same thing and it was kept. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Majora:, in deed I thought the Tasnim watermark (logo on picture, not text) was a proof of CC license. I dont't now how to fix the issue here? I made a search on to find the license they use, but found nothing. Do you propose that I renominate it for deletion? — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Three options that I see. Renominate it for deletion since does not have a Commons compatible license and is likely All Rights Reserved. Speedy delete it as a type of license laundering by Tasnim which is why all Tasnim images require license review. Or, amend your close on the last DR and delete it that way. --Majora (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the file. Sorry for all of this. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Claude Bonnier.jpg

I own this image or nobody does. I am the grandson of Claude Bonnier and have the originals in Claude's archives with no attribution. Should we not use it at all? Or should we continue to use it as many have on monuments and various publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustello (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bustello: Hi,
1. You should not remove deletion request from the file description page, although you can convert a speedy deletion to a regular deletion.
2. You should not reupload the file once deleted.
3. You are not the author. You need to provide accurate information. Who is the author? When the picture was first published?
4. The license is wrong. It may be in the public domain, but more information is needed to show that.
Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Owning a physical copy of an old portrait does not make you the copyright holder. The copyright is held by the photographer or his heirs. As this was most likely taken in France, it would be protected by copyright for the life of the photographer plus 70 years. And since Mr Bonnier died in 1944, we cannot assume that the image is already out of copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:台風に刺激された寒冷前線接近中 (17529635901).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Though JMA's image is copyrighted, according to {{JMA}}, the image can be used as long as credit is given. B dash (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Does "can be used" also include making adaptations and commercial use of the image? De728631 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)



This file is indeed a creative commons license, and therefore should be allowed.


Here are the CC 2.0 license and link via Flickr:

Anything I can do to help, please let me know - thank you.

--Jmurphy88 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • {{Cc-by-2.0}} is definitely permitted here. Unsure what happened – may @Ronhjones misidentify the image? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Image loaded 16:03, 8 February 2018 as "source=Brown University" using name File:Richard M. Locke.jpg. Image deleted. New image (File:RichardMLocke.jpg) uploaded 17:56, 15 February 2018 claiming Flickr image as source - which was uploaded February 12, 2018 - some 4 days after the original upload. Looks like Flickrwashing - it really needs to go through OTRS to prove the consent is genuine - unless we can be certain that the flickr site is an official university site. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose The Flickr account looks very much like it is owned by the University. Unfortunately, however, if you go to, they show icons for eight social media sites at the bottom of the page. Flickr is not one of them, so I have to agree with Ron -- lets get an OTRS record that shows that the Flickr account actually belongs to Brown -- or, if it doesn't, inform Flickr. I'll get off a message from OTRS today..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Message sent. Ticket #2018022010014348. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Have done as requested and added the name of the composer, his dates, and the date of the composition. Can it now be Undeleted?

19th February 2018. Eds009 Eds009 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eds009: Added where?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Even if the sheet music is out of copyright, there is a separate copyright for each recording or performance of the composition. So we cannot host audio recordings without permission by the performing musician(s). De728631 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Law enforcement in Belgium

Files concerned :

Even though the drawing is not simple enough to be considered as a common geometric shape, the logo is not protected by copyright as it is part of the Belgian legislation (Copyright Act, Art. 8, § 2 : Copyright shall not subsist in official acts of the authorities.). Indeed, the very same logo can be found in a Royal Decree from 2001 (page 3).

Regards, Vascer (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: now the image is deleted. Reverse? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Support and   Oppose. I think we should restore some of these, but I am not at all sure we need nine versions that are essentially identical. The only difference between the first three and the last three is the color of the line under the logo. The middle three are all the same -- we should keep only the SVG version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Leoncio-Diéguez Marcos.jpg

Dear responsible of Wikipedia Commons:

I write from the Conservatory of Music “Eduardo Martínez Torner”. Leoncio Diéguez was the first director of our center. He gives us his photography to put it on his Wikipedia´s article. The first time that we try to put his photography in Wikipedia Commons was the first time that we do this task so we didn´t know how we have to do it. In that moment we didn´t select the option it said that we have the rights of the photography. We didn´t understand why we have problems with this image, and we tried to put it on Wikipedia Commons again and again. Later, we read the instructions more carefully, and we understand that we must recreate the image and select the correct options about the rights of the photography of Leoncio Diéguez. So, please, don´t delete more this photography, or put you again.

Thank you very much, Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

-- 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ( 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC))

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. @Bcsmemt: Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:María Mocholí Garcia.jpg

El archivo ya poseía su licencia apta para poder poner en el wikipedia.

(Atribucion- Compartir igual) Atribución-Compartir bajo la misma licencia de Creative Commons

Si hay algún problema más me gustaría me lo hicieran saber ya que me inicio en esto del wikipedia.

Esperando noticias suyas que así me lo confirmen y restauren la fotografía,

Un saludo

(Nicuxi (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)) Nicuxi

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. @Nicuxi: Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours. This photo appears to be professional, yet the Flickr uploader appears to be both subject and photographer, and there is no usable EXIF metadata.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: See Jeff's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:CalTrout logo fish water people.jpg

‪California Trout owns this image: File:CalTrout logo fish water people.jpg. We want it on our Wikipedia page as our main image. I don't understand why this isn't allowed and we are repeatedly getting blocked. Uploading your own image to your own page should be allowed. Please undelete this image and reinstate it on our page. --California Trout (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. @California Trout: It's above US COM:TOO, so we need permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Lucas Oil Formula Car Race Series logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I created the logo for Lucas Oil School of Racing and I grant permission for its use. Altemus Prime (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Mary Daggett Lake.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public domain image in the United States. Publication without copyright notice in the 1930s has placed the image in the public domain. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. The source is shown as "1930s brochure featuring local Fort Worth actors". I think it is very unlikely that the copyright on such a brochure was renewed some time in the late 1950s. Therefore, I think we can probably keep this. However, if SaturdayLibrarian actually has a copy of the brochure, he or she could state definitely whether or not there is a copyright notice and, if so, what the date is. With that and the actual title of the brochure, it would be 15 minutes work to search the renewals. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I *do* have a copy of the publication right here and can confirm that there is no copyright notice. Inconveniently, there is also no title. You can see the publication in its entirety here: SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:HC Kunlun Red Star Heilongjiang.png

Hello I am official PR-manager of hockey club Kunlun Red Star Heilongjiang. A few days ago someone delete our logo from official russian, english and suomi pages of the teamКуньлунь_Ред_Стар_Хэйлунцзян

I get the message about "copyright violation". But that's impossible, because I am the official representative of HC Kunlun Red Star. What I need to do for get it back to the way it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudo21 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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 Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization which owns the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. When that license reaches the head of the OTRS queue, is read, and approved, the image will be restored automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Dirk Markus.jpg

Es wurde ein offizielles Dokument eingereicht, in dem die Fotografin erklärt, dass sie der Nutzung des Bildes in der Wikipedia und die Nutzung unter Commons ausdrücklich erlaubt. Das Bild wird nicht in anderer Form eingesetzt. Ich wundere mich, dass das Bild nun gelöscht wurde. --Philcomputing (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 33 days before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the e-mail has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ruben Hein, photo by Yani Pictures.jpg

I have the right to use this picture, since I am the owner of the rights. Kinds regards. Ruben Hein--Evamogen (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruben Hein, photo by Yani Pictures.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose With no categories and no useful description, the photograph is useless. It cannot be kept unless appropriate information is supplied to allow people to find it among our 40+ million images.

As far as the copyright goes, we are told that the image is by "Yani Pictures". Therefore, in order to have it restored, Yani Pictures must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


This file does not need deleting, the source from where this was copied is owned by the person in the photograph.

--Northds (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Sanjay Kukreja.png

Reasons for undeletion

The picture I uploaded was my own work no one else had rights to make a copyright issue on those picture!! If someone has complain about the pictures is because of jealousy! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:4042:2089:436C:2D0F:C7A:D055:B45 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)