Open main menu

Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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.

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:

  • 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

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    •   Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            •   Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose As noted in the discussion below regarding File:印军越界现场照片(一).png, {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies only to "textual documents" and not to maps, plans, or photographs. Unless we can get a colleague who reads Chinese to offer a different opinion, I think we are stuck with the precedents cited there. Entirely aside from that, I think that the images that include photographs must be deleted on the grounds that the photos may well be copyrighted and all of the maps must be shown to actually be Chinese government creations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think two articles of the law are most relevant in this case. (You may read the corresponding English translation.) Article 5, 本法不适用于: (1) 法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文. Article 22, 在下列情况下使用作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬,但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称,并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利: (7) 国家机关为执行公务在合理范围内使用已经发表的作品. What I think it says is, all government documents of administrative, legislative and judicial nature are not subject to copyright. 文件 means documents, which can include images. However, article 22 gives the government exemption to use copyrighted works. So my conclusion is, if an image is attributed to a government, or unattributed but included in a government document, it is free; if a work is attributed to some other organisations, for example File:福州烟台山历史文化风貌区土地利用规划图.jpg by Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute and Fuzhou Academy of Planning and Design, it is an instance of fair use by the government and hence unfree. For the free files, they should be verified by licence review. Also in this regard, 董辰兴 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a lot of copyvios.--Roy17 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Roy17, I will gladly defer to your native Mandarin skills, but I would like to be sure we are clear. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg, Stefan4 says:

"Case 1 in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} uses the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents', i.e. literary works"

That would not include photographs and maps as they are not textual. On the other hand, above, you say:

"... 文件 means documents, which can include images."

Are you sure that 文件 is not just textual, but includes images and maps? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: wikt:文件[2][3]. What you cited is not even a valid precedent for this UDR, because (if that image is [4]) it should be deleted because it is not part of a document. The analysis in that DR was not correct, but the decision was.--Roy17 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Roy17, but I am not concerned about that as precedent here, but simply the meaning of 文件. Does it clearly mean "documents, including text, photographs, plans, and maps" or is its meaning limited to "textual documents" as Stefan4 says in the cited DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you should not be concerned with a Swede's words "the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents'" in a wrong analysis.--Roy17 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a piece of regulations zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例(Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party and Government Organs) in which all 14 types of official documents are enumerated, but the whole text does not mention any non-textual content such as images, photos, or graphics. Therefore, from a legal perspective (rather than a lexical one), it is safe to assume that "official documents" do not entail images, especially when images are taken out of a collection and presented as only images. --Wcam (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例, article 9, 公文一般由份号、密级和保密期限、紧急程度、发文机关标志、发文字号、签发人、标题、主送机关、正文、附件说明、发文机关署名、成文日期、印章、附注、附件、抄送机关、印发机关和印发日期、页码等组成。 (9) 正文。公文的主体,用来表述公文的内容。 (15) 附件。公文正文的说明、补充或者参考资料。 There is no mention of excluding any form of media or restricting documents to the text. Part 15 goes on to say that attachments/appendices are indispensable components of the documents. (Often they take the form of photos and diagrams, but could actually be any kind of media.)--Roy17 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support per nom.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --WQL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --whym (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Pictures are obviously captured *in* the official statement, which is a part of a PDF, instead of from a website that segments of "statement" and "non-statement" cannot be clearly devided. Statements are not text-only. --TechyanTalk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  Question which license template should be applicable if undeleted? Ankry (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@WQL, Techyan, Jeff G.: Any hints? If none appropriate exists, it should be discussed in COM:VPC before coming here. Ankry (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: {{PD-ROC-official}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Definitely not. ROC != People's Republic of China. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Sorry, I meant {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. A diplomatic statement by an organ of the PRC state government appears to qualify as a decision or news thereof. I agree with your proposal below of restore and DR, as there is no mention of "text-only" in that template.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: {{PD-PRC-exempt}} is what they are getting at. However, the argument against using this license template is that it only applies to textual documents but not images, and for numerous times in the past here in Commons, the admins have agreed with such an argument. A few examples here:
--Wcam (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wcam: Indeed, some of the above cases make me doubt. However, I would   Support restoring and starting a DR to test whether the PDF document mentioned above should be considered covered by this template as a whole, or only its textual part. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: If in doubt, maybe COM:PRP should be considered? --Wcam (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it should, maybe not. I refrain from taking final decision here as I do not speak Chinese and the douubt seems to be language / translation related. I just thing that DR is a better place where Chinese speakers can present their opinion in this matter. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Also   Support restoring and starting a DR Abzeronow (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose I think the precedents cited by Wcam are persuasive. I see no reason to start a new DR unless someone who reads Chinese joins this discussion in the next day or two and argues that the "textual document" translation is incorrect. Without such an opinion, we must follow precedent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems that this image was taken by the army, which is a part of the government. This image is obviously shown as an evidence of India army soilders invading China's territory according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, P.R.C. I would argue that this image was indispensible to the document, obviously. --WQL (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That may be, but unless someone who reads Chinese can show that the "textual document" language is incorrect, we are stuck with the fact that documents that contain images -- and, obviously, the images themselves without the document -- do not qualify for PRC-exempt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jim here and I would also like to see a clear opinion of Chinese speaking users in this matter. That was the main reason for opening a DR: to get an opinion of wider Chinese-speaking community. Maybe ping a few users? But somebody would need to make a choice... Ankry (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


I first uploaded the file in December 18 with linking the source The wikimedia commons admin said that he deletes the photo because the license was not given at the website I referred and that I should talk to the admin of I just contacted her and she changed the website now and you can see that it is really a cc-by-sa license. So please undelete the file. --JD SD19 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Info The photo is declared now "© Kristoffer Schwetje Fotografie / cc-by-sa". I cannot identify license version, however. May it be interpreted as 1.0 or newer? No link to the license text either. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I was asked for. I thought this would be enough to clarify, that it is really a photo which is free to use. I mean it is a photo of some official German youth delegates and we need it for our wikipedia article. What must be done that the photo can be undeleted? --JD SD19 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@JD SD19: See {{Cc-by-sa}}. And AFAIK, CC-BY-SA licenses require providing URI to the license text (which I could not find). So I am waiting for others to comment on this. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

can anyone else help use with this topic? I really need the photo for the article and I did all the changes the admins originally asked me for. --JD SD19 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose unless and until the license on the website matches the license on the file description page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It seems also to me that @Yann doubts whether the CC license was granted by the photographer. The license info appears on a Flickr account that is not linked to the photographer's page. And the above mentioned link is a subjects' (not the photoghapher's) website. I think we cannot go further without COM:OTRS contact from the photographer or an evidence that copyright to this photo was transfered (this also needs OTRS). Any comment? Ankry (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg

Ich habe alle Rechte an diesem Foto vom offiziellen Filmfestival und des Fotografen per Mail bekommen und dieses Dokument auch an Wikipedia Persmission geschickt. Es sind alle Rechte somit geklärt und es gibt keinen Grund das Foto zu löschen. Anbei das Permissionformular ausgefüllt.

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [ Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017 ]

[ ] dass ich der Urheber (Fotograf, Grafiker, Maler, etc.) bin.

[ x] dass ich der Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin, das mir beliebige Veröffentlichungen, Bearbeitungen und Unterlizenzierungen dieses Werkes gestattet. Der Name des Urhebers lautet [Dominik Bindl].

Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

[LIZENZ (z.B. „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Deutschland in Version 3.0 (abgekürzt CC-by-sa 3.0/de)“)]

   Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.
   Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
   Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

[11.2. 2019], [Dominik Bindl]

Volcanus99 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Orthodox Church in Antwerpen (Sint-Jozefkerk).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo: This Flickr account was blacklisted because of The photo of the church that was deleted here appears to have been own work though. They appear to own at least a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and an iPhone 4. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose I am afraid that as the Flickr user used to provide false copyright information, we cannot apply AGF here and we need a valid OTRS permission in order to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: please see "The majority of the photograph in this Flickr stream are of my own 'production'. I post them here to share with the community but also to use them in my blogs, so this stream works as a storage space (these days they call it 'cloud'). At some point I began to gather here not only my own works, but also the images of other people - photographs, artworks, charts, maps, and whatnots. I try to attribute all these works as accurately as I can, but it's not always possible, unfortunately. Too many things are just 'laying there' on the web, unattributed and untitled."
Yes, this Flickr user made some mistakes, but if you look at the Flickr stream you will find they own at least a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and an iPhone 4. Images without metadata from this Flickr user can't be accepted so easily, I get that. The Flickr user appears to have changed their ways since then btw. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This has EXIF data on Flickr. I believe this is the Flickr user's own photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

File:500px photo (49407980).jpeg

Seems to have been nominated and deleted by mistake. It is true that the file says "all rights reserved", but the same person credited there made it available under a free license at 500px.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Support. According to information provided the file was imported as a result of licensing change. Despite changing of website terms CC-licensed files uploaded to 500px before the new conditions remain under free license as Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. --Mates (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  Question The license seems OK if we are able to ensure that this photo was indeed published on 500px by the autor. Any hints how van this be proved? Except I also found linked from here. Do both profiles belong to the same person? Ankry (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose I'm prepared to assume that the "Cyril Jayant" whose name appears in the upper left corner of the image is the person who has the 500px account with that name. However, I question whether it is in scope. An image of unknown people in Paris, at an unknown time and place, is not very useful. Also, there is the French right to privacy:

"Therefore, even though the privacy right in public exists in France, a photograph of a specific identifiable person in a public place can still be taken and published without the subject's consent as long as it can be shown that the photograph contributes to the exchange of ideas and opinions to such a degree that would make the photographer's freedom of expression right more important to the public interest than the subject's privacy right." (from Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France
It's not at all clear that this image meets that requirement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alan Fine Concert Hall in Ukraine.jpg

The reason I am requesting this image to be undeleted is that the image is from the artist's facebook page and their youtube performance, and I have their permission to use this on Wikipedia. --Rmozes (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose First, please note that "permission to use this on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. Second, in order for the images to be restored, the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 163 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify, the image was taken from the photographer/individual that gave me the photograph and gave me consent and permission to use it for the individual's Wikipedia page. I am still not sure why this is not being accepted if the photographer, or "copyrighted" person has said they are allowing the photograph to be used on Wikipedia, for free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose. Why is this an issue?

Sincerely, RM --Rmozes (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are forgers and liars in the world. We do not know who Rmozes actually is, so we require that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. OTRS volunteers are sworn to strict secrecy and will investigate to their satisfaction any claims that are made there. And, again, you have said that is was given to you for the individual's WP page -- that consent covers only WP and not the broader use noted above. Third, you say "photographer/individual ... individual's WP page". The subject, Alan Fine, your "individual" is obviously not the photographer in either case and therefore if, as you say, he gave you the image and the permission, it is not adequate. The copyright is owned by the actual photographer, not the subject. If the subject has licensed use of the photograph for his own promotional purposes, the license almost never permits the subject to freely license the image as required here. Finally, the two images are very different. I suspect that there are two different photographers, so both must write to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Kryxos Parliament.svg File:Nurondi Parliament.svg temporary undeletion request

May I please have these temporarily undeleted so that I may retrieve the files and transfer them to my computer? I was not aware of the "out of scope" rule. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageHenri (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  Support temporary undeletion. You can also mail me via wiki to receive the images back in a response. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Wimans ZTV.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My photos of the Swedish TV-show Wimans that I uploaded were deleted for some reason. Could it be because of incorrectly named files? The photos were taken by me and I was a producer of the TV-show shown in the photos. I would be happy if they could be undeleted.

Thanks and best regards!

AkroZ2000 (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AkroZ2000 Sweden, Stockholm AkroZ2000 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AkroZ2000, they were deleted because they are screenshots of a copyrighted TV show. Unfortunately there are liars and forgers in the world, so we cannot take your claim that you are the producer of the show at face value. In order for the images to be restored, you must send a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 163 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Logo of TAKREEM, no permission was given before as we were waiting for the official trademark registration document for the logo. Now permissions can be made/given. --Madalina Lichaa (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Madalina Lichaa 21/02/2019

@Madalina Lichaa: Only freely licensed logos can be stored in Wikimedia Commons. A free license permission from authorised official of the logo owner following COM:OTRS is needed for this. And this is long procedure. However, Arabic Wikipedia seem to accept Fair Use logos, so you can try to upload the logo there. More information can be found here. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the owner of this picture. I am Anders Levermann and the picture was taken at my Institute. Please use this picture for BOTH the German and the English Wikipedia site. You can email me at: or check out my website or call me +49 331 288 2560 Redondo10 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose It is irrelevant where the picture was taken. It is claimed to be copyrighted by Klemens Karkow, so we need a written free license permission from Klemens Karkow or a clear proof that this copyright claim is fake. Neither of them can be provided on-wiki, so I suggest that Klemens Karkow should send a free license agreement following COM:OTRS or another copright holder should provide a proof of copyright transfer the same way. This is standard procedure for images that were published without evidence of free license prior to their upload to Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


As nominator. @Laurent Bélanger: has brought important information to light at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michoucachou.jpg that I was woefully ignorant about. Laurent has also created the eponymous Category:Michel Girouard and that is where the deleted image belongs. Please let me know if you'd like more information. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll also @Gbawden: in case the closing admin wishes to comment (or perhaps they are notified automatically?). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    •   Question The file File:Michoucachou.jpg is in scope, and does not qualify for deletion as it is used in frwiki. Was File:CoupeCachou.jpg also used outside Commons? Ankry (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi. As I mentioned at the closed XfD (thank you for that) I don't believe it was used. And it was a wider shot of the trophy/sculpture where the small inset image of the journalist (and his dog) really wasn't terribly visible. The kept image was only added to the French article today, concurrent with Laurent's !vote today at the Xfd. I'm relatively inexperienced at the Commons but thought that since the editor has created an eponymous Commons category for this writer and TV personality, there might be some archival value in keeping the other shot, too, of this hommage to Girouard? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Is this whole thing a hoax? There are no Google hits for "Coupe Cachou" except this image. That strongly suggests that the cup is out of scope for Commons and WP. There are two references listed in the WP:EN article. One of the two has no mention of Girouard and the other is a photo of a gay wedding cake from 1972. Among the Google hits, there is a very short IMDB entry which might or might not be this person. There are no relevant LinkedIn hits -- I would expect that a notable person would appear on LinkedIn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No, well, it's not a hoax, in that there is a notable Quebec journalist named Michel Girouard with articles at enwiki and frwiki. But yes there is no realworld trophy or cup. Someone took a photo of this person and a dog (he's a notable doglover) and created this piece of self-made artwork as an hommage, far as I can tell. But I just realized another possible issue with the photo that is in use at fr:Michel Girouard -- the image on the statuette looks to have been clipped from a commercially published photo, in which case we don't have rights? In which case File:Michoucachou.jpg would need to be renominated for permission concerns? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Shawn in Montreal, you say, "there is a notable Quebec journalist named Michel Girouard with articles at enwiki and frwiki". If there is actually such a person, then why is it that there are no relevant Google hits on the name and neither the WP:EN nor the WP:FR article has any relevant references. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, again, I'd never heard of him but that's my own woeful ignorance (I thought) of Quebec French-language TV. But you find nothing? My Gsearch reveals this episode on him in an independently produced TV series on Quebec TV personalities, for one. And the articles bear his Virtual International Authority File. That said, an Afd on his articles at frwiki and enwiki might find him insufficiently notable, I don't know -- but I'm sure this is no hoax. Anyway, Yann has renominated the kept image on the basis of COM:DW and if that's successful this deletion should stand, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Wenqing Yu.jpg

Why was it deleted?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PAMMJ (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@PAMMJ: Deletion reason visible in the deletion log. Ankry (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mansingbhor

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were nominated for deletion in December 2018 with the explanation that they were unlikely to be the author's own work. However, I see nothing to suggest otherwise. This user has continued to upload files at the English Wikipedia and added them to the Chas Ghodegaon article. All the images were uploaded shortly after they were taken, assuming the date in the metadata has not been modified. In addition, reverse image searches have shown that these photos have not been used elsewhere. All this suggests Mansingbhor (talk · contribs) is indeed the copyright owner. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Info Unlike the enwiki images, the above images are low resolution and without EXIF. I think, the DR decision might be different if the user provided at least few images in full-resolution with EXIF. But they did not respond. Ankry (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point. As a non-admin, I can't view deleted content and can only guess what it was. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:RH .jpg

I am representing Rob Holland, whom is photographed in this photo and uploading this image of him to be included on his Wikipedia page upon his request. Jmariewny (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  OpposeIn that case, policy requires that either the actual copyright holder, who is almost always the photographer, must upload the image himself or he must give a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 163 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

Note also that is a serious violation of Commons rules to claim "OWN WORK" as you did here when you are not the actual photographer. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Jean-Jacques de Felice.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Fête du Garm au Mont Vedun le 19 juin 1971.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Groupe d'action et de résistance à la militarisation.jpg

C'est bien moi le créateur de l'image, j'ai encore les négatifs. Pouvez-vous la rétablir, s'il vous plaît ? --GDechesne (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Support I don't see why this cannot be own work. Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:MAN OF THE MATCH - Mario Götze - The 2014 FIFA World Cup Final - 140713-9202-jikatu (14498020747).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I will add the source link Ibrahim.ID 15:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mariah Miranda was the photographer who took the photo for NORML, the organization, who has the right to use this photo for these purposes. 2603:3003:36FD:1000:7D3E:9ADA:ACF4:CCD5 15:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dinosaria wa Tendaguru.jpg

Munfarid1 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Ronhjones

Please restore the following page: File:Dinosaria wa Tendaguru.jpg

Reason: I am a new user, working on my first article for wikipedia. when I uploaded this file, I was not aware of the necessity of adding the Free Art Licence. I do have the copyright owner's consent for this licence and can add it, as soon as you restore the file or tell me some other way of uploading it with the licence.

Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Munfarid1

File:Wenqing Yu.jpg

This is an original work. No issue with violation of copyright.--PAMMJ (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Raaed Haikal 2017.jpg

ارجو استرجاع الصورة المحذوفة --RAAED-PC (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:CSI enacted.jpg

Participants modeling as crime investigators interrogate a volunteer (playacting a crime suspect) in a simulated interrogation room, as a part of an event of Inquivesta, the official annual flagship fest of Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, an autonomous science education and research institute. The photograph was taken by me during Inquivesta 7, the seventh edition of the fest, on March 3, 2017. Note that the event is named "C.S.I.", but it has nothing to do with the TV crime series of the same name, except that it has been inspired by it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinash dash1997 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Avinash dash1997 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Buster Rocket.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buster Rocket.jpg

Related to 1923 American film Our Hospitality Abzeronow (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done: per Abzeronow. --Strakhov (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)