Commons:Undeletion requests


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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Shoop from military museum.jpg

See ticket:2017011410010965. An OTRS e-mail was sent in for this image but was ignored. Jcb and Jarekt have some crossed wires that need resolving. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is very confusing. OTRS e-mail did not mentioned specific file and I incorrectly assumed that it was the only file on Clarence Shoop I could find: File:MG Clarence Shoop.tif. The OTRS e-mail is not sufficient for File:Shoop from military museum.jpg since the permission is not from copyright holder. As I mentioned on OTRS: The author is unnamed "California Air National Guard" and the permission is from curator of California State Military Museums. Unless there is a proof that the photographer of his/her heir legally transferred the copyrights to California State Military Museums, I see no reason why the curator can give such permission. Most photographs by US military are in Public Domain and use Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force or similar template. However I am not sure if members of California Air National Guard are US government employees. I think it could be undeleted with Template:PD-CAGov template. Opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I obtained the picture from the museum, run by the State of California. They have physical possession of it which intones to me that they are the rightful owners. I cannot imagine a situation where a museum or archive would have a picture but both the without permission of the owner and unaware of the ownership. The picture was of Shoop, an officer in the CA Air National Guard, while assigned to a CA Air National Guard unit, standing in uniform next to a CA Air National Guard aircraft on that unit's airstrip, presumably taken by another member of the CA Air National Guard. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the curator at the CA Air National Guard's museum is both the correct authority to verify authenticity of the photo and to verify that the photo is in the public domain. Sergeant Major Dan Sebby, the curator, sent the e-mail to OTRS on January 17th of 2017. For that reason I request undeletion of the image. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)   Oppose Unfortunately, your conclusions are based on several incorrect assumptions. The owner of a copy of created work is not usually the owner of the copyright and does not usually have the right to freely license it. Certainly you understand that if you own a copy of a book, you do not have the right to make and sell copies of the book. Exactly the same law applies to all created works, so the fact that the museum owns a copy of a paper photograph says nothing about the museum's right to freely license it.
Second, unless the photograph was taken at a time when the California Air National Guard had been "called up" -- that is, put under Federal command, its people are not Federal employees.
Third, even if the Guard had been called up, a photograph taken by a member must have been in the course of his official duties -- generally, his MOS must have been Photographer. A photograph taken of an officer by a friend does not qualify for {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} because it was not taken in the course of the friend's duties.
If you can prove that either (a) the photographer gave the museum a formal written license that allows the museum to freely license the photo to others or (b) the Guard was on Federal duty when the image was taken and the photographer's duties included photography, then the image can be restored. However, under Commons rule, the burden of proof is on you to prove one or the other beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I think I have proved beyond a significant doubt. I think your concerns ask for a proof of absolute fact. I believe the curator of a museum (himself a State of CA employee administering the state's property) would know if there was a copyright issue with any photo in the collection. I encourage you to contact OTRS about his e-mail. I think it's reasonable to assume PD-CA Gov applies. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no confidence that a museum curator in a small museum has any familiarity with copyright law. Many people believe that owning a copyrighted work gives them the right to freely license it. Since the museum apparently does not know who the photographer was, it cannot know that it has the right to freely license it -- it cannot have that unless it has a written license from the photographer, which would, of course, tell them who the photographer was. On the other hand, it cannot know that the image is PD for the reason that it was taken by a Federal or California employee in the course of his duties because again, if it does not know who the photographer was, then how can it know what his duties were? So, tell me, how do you think that under these circumstances that the museum can correctly say that there is no copyright problem? I don't see any such way. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose for now, the OTRS ticket is ongoing. Can be undeleted if the involved OTRS agent requests so. @Chris troutman: For your information, there is nothing wrong with my wiring. You did not mention the ticket number anywhere at the image description page. It's a well established standard procedure to delete {OTRS pending} files after a few months if nothing comes in. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: How would I know what the ticket number is? I upload the photo and have the source of the image send in an e-mail to OTRS. I don't know the ticket number until you tell me. The fact the OTRS is so horribly backlogged contributes to the problem as e-mails were sent and not acknowledged. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Vitral_Templo_Maipu.JPG and File:PlacaVDS.JPG

Deleted ignoring Chile has FOP. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Vitral Templo Maipu.JPG is a view from inside of a temple, so I doubt FoP Chile applies.
File:PlacaVDS.JPG restored. It is a small resolution image, so feel free to renominate on another rationale.
Ankry (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The first is, as noted, an interior image and the FOP exception is limited to outdoor works. The second is text, which is classified as a literary work, not an artistic work, and therefore not included in the FOP exception.

WIPO translation of Article 71F: "...monuments, statues and, in general, those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis..."

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: While, you may be right in the second case, it should go through proper DR. no-FoP deletion reason is clearly invalid here. IMO, it is disputable whether this is a literary work or just purely informative text (I do not know Spanish, however, so cannot judge here). Ankry (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The FOP apply only if the work is actually protected under the Copyright Law of Chile. I could reseach for the author and the date of creation of the vitral. If it is not attributed to a single architect (it is Anonymous or Pseudonymous or by an organization), this may be already in the PD.
And for the plaque, need some research. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I   Support undeletion of the first image. The stained glass window was designed by Adolfo Winternitz (d. 1993) but since it is a window you can see the same image from outside the temple too, so FoP should apply. As to the text plaque, this is hardly a literary work because it only states that Víctor Domingo Silva was born "under the roof of this house". The text content is probably too simple for copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There already was a discussion about such a case (in Switzerland). I don't know Chilean law, but if FoP is restricted to outside, it probably doesn't apply into such a case. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This is why I mentined I'll research. The "Templo Votivo de Maipú" is so close to me, but I have no time to schedule a visite and get the information. I'll keep updated you. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of Peter Phillips.png

The file was removed as missing permission, but the version I can see in google cache seems legit :

  • There is a license
  • The source files from which it was derived are mentionned
  • The article quoted seems only to provide a blazon and not the current emblazonement

Can someone review the deletion as the file was used on two projects (en:wiki and fr:wiki). Kathisma (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest version before deletion stated that "This file was derived from:
Hello. I have drawn this achievement using files of sodacan. The shield, helm, mantling and crest parts come from the aforesaid files. For the spur, I have drawn it with 17 very basic vector paths (the arch, the neck and the rowel, with their reflects, shadows and strokes). Saltspan (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. I   Support the undeletion of this file because it is a combination of other images on Commons and the uploader's own work. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a copyvio. Screenshop from a video, found here, was produced by Chastime, which is a VOA program. Multiple VOA markings in the video, was not produced by RFE/RL, as claimed by User:David Levy. СССР (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the {{PD-USGov-VOA}} tag, "Voice of America republishes reporting from the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and others. Always check the credit; such content is not in the public domain."
In this instance, a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" credit is clearly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the frame. RFE/RL hosts the same clip (without VOA's graphics or attribution to an external source) here. Before deleting the file, I performed machine translations of the Russian text accompanying both versions of the video (including graphics, which entailed the use of a camera-dependent smartphone application) to ensure the consideration of all identifying information present.
Per RFE/RL's terms of use, "Internet-based live and archived broadcasts of RFE/RL and its 20 broadcast services are intended solely for the personal use of [their] audience. No broadcast, rebroadcast or other use of these programs is permitted without the express, written authorization of RFE/RL, Inc."
David Levy 19:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my objections; deletion was justified. СССР (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


This Is not a CR Violation, I do not only work at the TV station and own the rights but I took this picture and also I own the rights! Thank you, Magicoat

  Oppose IN that case, an authorized official of the radio station must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Android logos.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Android logos.jpg was deleted by Magog the Ogre on 25 March 2017, 18:24:26 because "Copyright violation" and was uploaded by أيوب أيوب.

This file was nominated for DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Android logos.jpg) where discussion was being held, to confirm that the image File:Android 96px.png is freely licened. There may be some "composition copyright" in the work here, becuase of the alignment of the logo multiple times in this file, but I believe it deservs a disussion. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore in procedural grounds: Out of process speedy deleted. However, this file is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, where the Android Robot is licensed under the CC-BY license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done sorry for the mixup. The Arabic speaking uploaders are using the Android logo and embedding it with hidden data for file sharing. Since the uploader is an Arabic-speaking Wiki zero pirate (e.g., File:لعبة داما.png), I failed to check this one which is actually just the logo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done: se above. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Chasing Stars by Ektor Pan.jpg


"RESTORE IMAGE" I am the copyright owner of the artist's photograph. (Thirdaway (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC))

Some of these pictures show Ruben Ortega Vega as author in the EXIF data. So Ruben Ortega Vega has to send a formal written permission via COM:OTRS. The files are not yet deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)   Oppose First, the WP:ES article Ektor Pan is up for deletion. We should not restore any of these until that decision has been made, because we don't need 17 images of a singer that has not made it into WP.
Second, I note that while you said that you were the actual photographer when you uploaded these as "own work", now you say that you are the copyright owner -- and, therefore, presumably not the photographer. Giving incorrect information on files is a nuisiance and waste of time for all of us.
Third, some of them show Ruben Ortega Vega as the photographer.
If and when our colleagues decide to keep the article on Ektor Pan, the actual copyright holders, including Ruben Ortega Vega, should send free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Yann's and James'. Moreover, all this seems to be a promotional operation by the singer or by members of his environment. --Discasto talk 22:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)