From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This page is a forum for users to request that a page or file (hereafter, "file") be undeleted. Users can comment on other requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete, along with their reasoning. There is also an archive of previous requests. Closed undeletion debates are daily archived by DRBot with a threshold of 24 hours.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is part of is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Deletion review.

[edit] Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use Special:Whatlinkshere (from the image page — even if the file has been deleted, this still works) to see if there was a discussion about the file anywhere.

Secondly, please read over Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope, and Commons:Licensing once more to find out the reason why it 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.

[edit] Appeal

If the deletion was correct based on the current licensing and project scope pages, you should complain on how those pages are written, for example on the talk page of respective page.

If you believe your image was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

• You might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. You can ask the admin about the further detailed reason or show evidence to qualify.
• If you don't wish to contact anyone directly, or an individual administrator has refused undeletion, or you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page as described below.

[edit] Specific cases

[edit] Temporary undeletion

These requests can usually be considered "speedily undeletable" (thus, will probably not require discussion):

[edit] Fair use

Users from a project that accepts fair use can request temporary undeletion (2 days) in order to transfer the file to their project. The user should state which project they intend to transfer the file to, and link to their project's fair use statement, if it is not already linked here.

Projects that accept fair use:

• Wikipedia: ca | cs | el | en | et | eo | fi | fr | hr | it | ja | lt | lv | ro | ru | sr | tr | uk | vi | zh | he | +/−
• Wikinews: en | pl | +/−
• Wikibooks: en | +/−
• Wikisource: fr | +/−

Note: the list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content. (last updated: August 2009)

[edit] Instructions to admins

Common sense can be applied. If, for example, an image was deleted as no source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the image can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user says he wishes to tag an image with a certain license, you can do that for him if you want to, or leave it to him to do it. However, it is important that you remove any "speedy delete" template from the file.

In general, try to comply with the requests of well intending users. Images can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at, without the request itself having to be closed.

There is no objection to the original deleting admin undeleting the file on the basis of agument or more inforrmation being provided, nor is there any objection to the deleting admin joining in the discussion. However, contentious undelete requests should not be closed as "Not done" by the deleting admin.

When it is established that a debate is settled, you can close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted". Then you add the template {{udelh}} above the header, and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment (the templates are short for "Un-DELete Header" and "Footer").

Closed requests are automatically moved to the archive.

Please refer to the undeletion request when you undelete, e.g. "Undeleting per [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Image:Foo.jpg]]".

Temporarily undeleted images should be tagged with {{temporary undelete}}. This places them into Category:Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Category:Candidates for deletion. Anything here should be re-deleted after 2 days.

[edit] Add a request

Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" tab next to the current date, below. Please add the request to the bottom of the page, and remember to include the following:

• In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
• Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
• State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
• Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

[edit] Current requests

See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive.

From: 	info@worlddigitallibrary.org
To: 	[email address redacted]
Subject: 	Library Question - Answer [Question #4441109]
Date: 	Thu, Jul 2, 2009 1:08 pm

 


Hello - Thank you for this message.  We apologize for the delay in responding.  
You may use a screenshot of the WDL home page.  Thanks for letting us know. 

Sincerely, 
The WDL Team
http://www.wdl.org

-----------------------

Question History:

Patron: To whom it may concern,

I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) and its parent 
organization, the Wikimedia Foundation (wikimedia.org).

In order to illustrate Wikipedia articles on the World Digital Library, we would 
like to use a screenshot of the WDL homepage (http://www.wdl.org/en/). However, 
we may only use images that are freely licensed or meet fair use criteria.

Since the WDL homepage is created by the Library of Congress, would such a 
screenshot be in the public domain as a work of the United States Federal 
Government (under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code)? 
If not, would it be possible for explicit permission to use such a screenshot 
for any purpose be granted?

I appreciate your time.

[signature with personal information redacted]

Librarian 1: Hello - Thank you for this message.  We apologize for the delay in 
responding.  You may use a screenshot of the WDL home page.  Thanks for letting 
us know. 

Sincerely, 
The WDL Team
http://www.wdl.org

[edit] File:E haplogroup.gif

I was aware of copyright issues when I created this image. I wanted to maintain as much likeness to the contours of the image on the source, to portray as accurately as possible the frequencies of the specific lineages. But I created a different image using the File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png as a background. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe its a DW from this protected map Huib talk 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the description of that map, the contour lines in it were automatically generated by computer from the referenced table of frequency data. As such, I doubt there's anything eligible for copyright in the maps except perhaps for the color scheme. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support allowing this user to re-generate a map using the same data, but not copying the existing map. -Nard the Bard 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

I probably forget with the first upload some information. Because I'm so often here I got the information too late. Today I've made a second upload with information on author, license and permission. Nontheless it was deleted with the comment: re-created by user, still no authorship information on the original photograph. But there was an inormation on the author, it is an own work and so I am the author. I can't imagine what problem is. --Polemos (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who created the photograph. If it was taken in 1880, it may still be in copyright depending on who the photographer was (and when he died).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif and some others (50? I did not count [1]) were speedy'ed as "no source or license since May 2007". They were tagged with {{military Insignia}} which states that:

"If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of images tagged with this template and uploaded cannot be confirmed as free, they should be listed for deletion."

So speedy is not a valid oprion here. Files were old so they should be nominated for deletion if it is not possible to find proper source and license.

There is a lot of files like these - Category:PD tag needs updating has 8,456 files that need an update. Problem is that it takes time to fix and there is to few users to fix all problems on Commons here and now. I think it is a bad idea just to speedy them all. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I second the request that uploaders be warned before their files are deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides we have [2] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The general problem

A directly related problem, that we may further discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? Sv1xv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.

However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.

I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Someone appears to have marked all old military Insignia files with no license. Since you were all complaining about not getting notice I figured I'd tell you. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Wendover-Will.jpg

Please restore the above. It was in use on en:Wendover Will. As you can read the artwork was created in 1951. Artworks published in the US (and we certainly accept public display as publication in other instances), before 1978 without a copyright notice are simply in the public domain. The deletion request was (IMO) closed too soon and wrongly: the photograph was deleted because there is no FOP in the US, but none is needed for photographs of artwork in the public domain. If the photo is finally deleted it should be reuploaded to the Wikipedia as Fair use. I have raised the issue with the deleting admin who suggested I raise it here. --Simonxag (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is no copyright notice on it, then yes it is PD and the photo is fine. Is there some documentation that there is no visible copyright notice anywhere on it? The back side too? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was it displayed? Erecting a statue in public is publication. Putting an artwork in a museum is not. Details details details... -Nard the Bard 06:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A google image search should give an idea. It was (and still is) erected in public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

As a 1951/1952 work, the copyright would have also needed renewing. Checking http://cocatalog.loc.gov/, it looks like Pat Denner recently copyrighted some table lamps, presumably based on Wendover Will and Vegas Vic, and Young Electric Sign Company registered a couple more recent signs. But there doesn't appear to be any renewal for the original Wendover / Stateline Casino sign (did keyword searches for "Wendover" and "renewal", "stateline" and "renewal", "young electric", "cowboy sign", and "denner pat"). --dave pape (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point actually. The online records start from 1978; this was commissioned in 1952 so if published that year, the earliest the renewal could be would be 1979 and that should be searchable. That seems like a good reason to undelete to me -- very easy to disprove; just find the online renewal record (and re-nominate for DR if one is found). If not found, that is pretty good grounds to claim PD-US-not_renewed (for the statue, not the photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone found a renewal? If not I will undelete. --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missing 2 Denise Milani files

Hi, I'm missing at least 2 nice pics of Milani. They had the same source as in Denise Milani. Please restore. Furthermore I am missing one/some of the deleted en-articles [3]. I couldn't find a copy in deletionpedia. Where else I could find one of them? Regards 78.55.57.189 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the pics, you'll have to give us something to go by. Names of the images or who uploaded them or where they used to appear - something. As for the en.wp article, you would need to bring that up at en.wp. Wknight94 ^talk 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi ME, You said images from the same source as the image in Denise Milani - there are no other milani images in http://www.flickr.com/photos/kamui99/.

if you mean this image: was uploaded to en.wp - the uploader needed two uploads, the second upload he needed to remove the watermark from the image he "created entirely himself" ;) ... The image was uploaded by en:User talk:Nightdiscoman. Some "other" user - a blatant sockpuppet - uploaded another image first under a fair use claim and than as "own work". See version history of en:User talk:Tobetoday. That was maybe the second image you searched, that was deleted precautionary. --Martin H. (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I have meant File:Densie Milani in pink.jpg. I have used it on a German work-in-progess-site (currently vandalized). But there was a third one, not as nice as these both. But I can't remember its file name. Regards 78.55.57.189 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• btw: Is this one of the deleted Denise Milani articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mailer_diablo/Archive_%CE%BE#Denise_Milani ME 78.55.57.189 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of fact: the other Milani image deleted by Martin H. at the same time was File:DeniseMilaniBikini2005.jpg. As for the en.wp article, what you linked to is close to the deleted version, but surely you would want to use more current sources and content than 2007. Wknight94 ^talk 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so the bikini pic is from the same dubious source? That's a pity. The en-Denise Milani name space is still locked for authors, or? So it would make no sense to create a new nickname on en? My famous nick is blocked by Jimbo himself - as far as I can see the only German he has ever blocked. But I could present a German article about lovely Denise. Perhaps an English author has good connections to de-admins and is able to translate it. Here is the (vandalized) German version of 2008: de:Benutzer:Cascari/Nicht vergessen!#Denise Milani Regards, ME 78.55.57.189 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rey-osterreith example.jpg

I have discussed this issue with Mike Godwin Wikipedia's lawyer and he states "Mike: i frankly don't think any of the patient drawings is creative enough to qualify as copyrighted. i also think that way about the original figure Sent at 22:56 on Wednesday" Some ROCF could be just a square with a circle inside of it. Just because someone might call it an ROCF one cannot claim copyright over it. Thus would it be possible to undelete this image?Jmh649 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is deletion a joke? How can that be a copyvio? --MGA73 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the original? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The issues are the same as those surrounding the Rorschach test and Wikipedia controversies.^[1] The psychological community trys very hard to keep information about there profession off of Wikipedia. They have claimed copyright falsely over a number of images. The original of the Rey-osterreith can be seen here [4] Jmh649 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. ↑ Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That - NYTimes.com.

[edit] The Kingdom of Gold pdf

The Kingdom of Gold pdf Written 31 March 2002 Author Gee Jay Just uploaded as a replacemment of previou mistakenly deleted by wiki commons please upload this file Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gee Jay (talk • contribs) 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Must be this File:Kingdom Of Gold.pdf. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like own work. But you should send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where you confirm that Geejay Thamby and User:Gee Jay is the same person? --MGA73 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)