Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

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:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • 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


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Both the images are below the threshold originality under Polish law. The testimony of the statement is shown in the two court judgments.

First of all art. 1 law 1 of copyright and related rights act states that:

"The subject matter of copyright is any creative activity of individual nature, made in any form, regardless of its value, intended use, the form of expression"

In case I ACa 809/08 court states about the article above that:

"It defines essential qualities of the work, which are distinguishing it against works of others. In source literature, the prerogatives are defined as originality ('indication of creative activity') and individuality. In the first case it is about making a 'subjectively new intelectual creation' (cf. J. Barta, M. Czajkowska-Dąbrowska, Z. Ćwiąkalski, R. Markiewicz, E. Traple 'Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych. Komentarz', Dom Wydawniczy ABC 2001).

Originality itself isn't a sufficient condition to call the result of an activity a work. It is also mandatory for it to be marked by individuality. 'measures of individuality' proposed in the doctrine underlines analysis of statistical single-usability, meaning finding out whether analogous work existed in the past and if someone specializing in the same field could statistically achieve the concurrent effect. Another possible way is an analysis of the extent of artistic licence. In other words: in other words: is it the result of work determined by the function of the object, practical assumptions to be met by it, technical requirements or other objective factors, or - a process that leaves a choice."

Case I ACa 800/07 states that:

"Statement, that the product is an indication of 'creative activity', means that it shall be a result of the activity of creative nature. That statement, often described as the premise of 'originality' of creation, is true when there's subjectively new intellectual creation; it is therefore only included on a ground of subjective novelty and retrospectively oriented."

In the judgement, there is also another case brought up: FSK 2253/04 where it is stated that:

"Proprietary curriculum can't be considered a work (on basis of art. 1 law 1 of copyright and related rights act of February 4, 1994) if maker's creation doesn't have qualities of originality and individuality, in the sense of law.""

Therefore logos above can't be considered original and individual work as there are modifications of previous club logos variants (with copyrights expired, as they were made before World War II), as seen here including this, which the admin that deleted the other files seem to deem not original. Piotr Bart (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support this request as the club name, its creation year and standard geometric shapes do not seem to express any creativity. But pinging @DMacks: the deleting admin for comments. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If others think these specific ones are free, then I'm fine with their undeletion. Note to Piotr Bart though, I merely was running a list of files tagged by others. You can see from your talkpage the note about how this came to admin attention, and that's why I specified in my deletion "tagged as copyvio (non-free logos)". I was not browsing by uploader or topic, so File:Poloniawarszawa2.svg was not even on my radar. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I thought that all three files were reported, that's why I assumed you allowed that one. Piotr Bart (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; the fuller admin view of the history makes it much clearer what was going on than the public-facing puzzle-pieces. DMacks (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Логотип Международного Мемориала.svg

Clear {{PD-textlogo}}: a word in plain font with highly simplified geometric stylized flame above "M". --M5 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ToO in Russia is extremely low -- paintings consisting of a plain black square had a copyright until they expired, see Category:Black Square (Malevich) See here for discussion.. This would probably be PD in the USA, but it's a close call. It certainly would be copyrightable in the UK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logotipo de Televisa (1981-1990).png

The closer deleted this because they thought "the combination of ellips and circle with striking lines as an original creation." As pointed out in my keep vote there are many logos made during the 80s when this created that have extremely similar designs. Including ones with suns that are circles (every image of the sun is a circle) and "striking lines" (whatever that means). So there is nothing original about this logo. If anyone wants examples of how generic this logo is, do a Google image search for "80s sun logos." Most of the results have extremely similar designs to this one. Hell, images of chopped up suns are almost an 80s new wave style trope at this point. To the point that no one looking at the image in isolation would no it's from Televisa and not just a generic image from the 80s. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted at COM:TOO Mexico the Mexican ToO is quite low, allowing only letters, digits or isolated colors to appear without copyright. There was an extended discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logotipo de Televisa (1981-1990).png which concluded that this was above the ToO. I agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bahnanlagen sind kein Spielplatz (Bundespolizei).JPG

should be restored and equipped with {{PD-GermanGov}} --- Thanks, --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Section_5(2)_works Ankry (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rohit Gurunath Sharma.jpg

File should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggaDaaku (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose From subject's Instagram page, August 23, 2021, here. Thuresson (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thuresson I credited corrected my mistake before you could delete the file. Please reconsider the deletion. JaggaDaaku (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The copyright owner (photographer) would need to contact COM:VRT with permission for the file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no declared free license on instagram. But even if it is there, it would be irrelevant. We need a free license from the photographer not from the subject (this is not e selfie and we have no evidence that the copyright has been transferred. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Bertha Wegmann, En lille pige, der leger under et juletræ, 1846 - 1926, Kks9379, Statens Museum for Kunst.tif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bertha Wegmann, En lille pige, der leger under et juletræ, 1846 - 1926, Kks9379, Statens Museum for Kunst.tif

"Henrik Bornemann died 1951". Now public domain in the EU. This link gives a production range of 1846-1926. I think it's likely public domain in the United States. Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vesper Boat Club Coxed Pair, Lucerne International Rowing Regatta.pdf

This is the original file upload for the wiki page. VikingShieldWall (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it any different than File:Lucerne Vesper Coxed Pair.pdf (which it has been redirected to)? It was deleted as an exact duplicate -- did you accidentally upload the file twice 6+ years ago, or were they slightly different? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These were not technical duplicates of each other, but the merged file is deemed unnecessary to be kept. It was an uncroped A4-scan of the image on a white background (i.e. used a photo copier). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


I am requesting wikimedia team to add undeleteion request for my image as I accept that I did any mistake & you have to give me chance...

--PGS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldude7011 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: This image has been deleted already 3 times! The last time based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Parthsiddhpura. --Túrelio (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capa bons actores.jpg

the cover or cover is my author is part of the cover of my artist's song that will be released is already linked in previous sites before wikipedeia cover rights belong to us

a capa ou capa é meu autor faz parte da capa da música do meu artista que será lançada já está linkado em sites anteriores antes da wikipedeia direitos da capa nos pertencere



A "capa bons Actores "pertence nós faz parte da nossa autoria já temos vinculados em sites anteriores antes de ser colocados no wikipedia não existe nenhuma violação dos direitos do Autor por isso viemos por este meio fazer um pedido de restauro a capa ou imagem .

LINK : LINK : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaisybell (talk • contribs)

@Jaisybell: There is no legal construction that grants you a "right" to publish in Wikimedia Commons that is a third-party service for you. Wikimedia Commons "right to publish" is regulated by policies that you violated. Using the Own work-style licensing is accepted here ONLY for original, unpublished works made 100% personally by the uploader. In any other case you are required to provide an EVIDENCE that the claimed free license has already been granted. This one image is neither an original photo with complete camera info, nor an unpublished one. In order to restore the image the actual copyright holder needs to follow VRT. Or you need to provide an evidence that the album cover has been initially published under the declared cc-by-sa-4.0 license (I seriously doubt it has). Ankry (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arnold Schönberg Variationen für Orchester op. 31 excerpt.mp3

"undelete in 2022, composer died in 1951". Composition is now PD in the EU. Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per rationale in original DR by Gnom from 2020. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:زليخات يوسف للكاتب علي السباعي.jpg

امتلك كامل حقوق الملف — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed zaman (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg InfoGoogle translate: "I own all rights to the file". Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This file was published before without a free licence. In such cases our require that the copyright holder sends a permission by email. Please see COM:VRT for details. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]