Commons:Undeletion requests

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


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

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

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

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit


I am Wes Duncan’s campaign manager. I have been doing my best to navigate the processes of Wikipedia to use our pictures, and verify my position within the campaign by using my official email address,

Please undelete this picture, as it belongs to our campaign and we have every right to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicfarland (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Vicfarland: can you explain how are you, or your employer, entitled to rights for a photo produced by one Cathleen Allison and published in the Washington Times? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I guess he obtained the rights to use this AP Photo in the campaign. However, that does not automatically allow him to relicense that photo.
Please undelete File:Palmcard1.pdf and File:Palmcard2.pdf. Because the source I provided in File:Wesley Duncan countryside crop.jpg is making no sense without that. If @Vicfarland: hasn't already given OTRS permission for those files I'm sure he will very quickly. - Alexis Jazz 08:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Alexis Jazz: The files should be undeleted after the permission is received, not in advance. Before the permission is signed by copyright owner, claiming that they are freely licensed is just copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Well we have already verified this account belongs to John Vick and he already uploaded these files with CC license so it's not as terrible as it seems. He has already provided OTRS for File:Wes with dog.jpg and I was thinking that OTRS perhaps covers the palmcards as well. But I agree, I was thinking too much of what John Vick would want, not of what Commons wants. - Alexis Jazz 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
OTRS for the palmcards was sent so these will probably reappear in a while. - Alexis Jazz 20:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

File:IMG 3928-watermarked.jpg

As a permission (Ticket#: 2018021710004258) sent by Diba Tensile Architecture for publishing pictures uploaded by User:Dibatensilestructure, please undelete the mentioned picture (File:IMG 3928-watermarked.jpg)

از آنجا که اجازه نامه ای برای کامنز از طرف گروه معماری دیبا ارسال شده است لطفا فایل مورد اشاره را احیا کنید. Dibatensilestructure (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Files from Flickr mass-deleted out of process

I request that the files visible in this deletion log (and subsequent pages) with the reason "Uploaded files of a blocked user. To prevent harm from new tenant. -" be restored on the grounds that they were deleted without a deletion request, a speedy deletion reason, or any other basis in policy.

There was already a discussion on COM:AN on the topic, where the deleting admin said that they deleted the files because the copyright on them was being very strictly enforced (no basis in policy for this), and that they would not contest undeletion.

In that discussion, I was redirected here, so I'm now raising it here. Tokfo (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - these file were uploaded with the purpose of causing harm to reusers. In case of semi-criminal activities, administrators can always act in order to prevent damage to the project or to our reusers. It may be argued that a regular DR would have been better, but the result would have been the same: deletion. Undeleting them now to redelete the files next week in a regular DR seems pointless to me. - Jcb (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no proof they were uploaded for the purpose of causing harm to reusers 10:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Who are you? And yes, there is evidence enough about the intentions of the uploader. Jcb (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Admins are expected to use their judgement when odd situations arise. I think that if I had become aware of the problems created by this Flickr user, that I might also have deleted the images rapidly. It seems clear from the discussion at COM:AN that the source of these exists only to find suckers to hit with a legal action. I see no reason at all why Commons should assist the Flickr user in his quasi-legal efforts. It is true that a few of these are great images. Others are not so great and some are copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Were all of the pictures taken by Flickr user Marco Verch? If I understand de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/Archiv/2018/01#Hilfe - Rechnung für Commons-Foto erhalten correctly, someone was billed €481.50 for minor errors when using flickrphoto:26163120803: the file is listed as cc-by-2.0 (no share-alike, version 2) on Flickr, but the website with the infringing use listed cc-by-sa-3.0 instead (with share-alike, version 3) and there was no clickable link to the licence text. I think it's problematic if someone sends you a bill when the error obviously is a minor mistake, although it's fine if someone intentionally violates your copyright. Instead of undeleting any files, I think that we should delete the rest of the files in Category:Photographs by Marco Verch and probably instruct the reviewer bots to blacklist files from this Flickr user so that files aren't reposted to Commons. Sure, the files may be free in some legal sense, but they are not free from a practical sense if reusers don't know how to reuse them without being fined. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Stefan2: is it certain that Marco Verch himself sent these Abmahnungen, not someone else posing as the rights holder? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question to those opposing this undeletion request. What is the standard you'd like Commons to use when deciding what copyright enforcement is too strict? I don't think that you want Commons to be a de facto PD-only repository because no copyright holder can ever enforce their licenses and keep their files hosted here; but I really don't see a way to otherwise fairly and consistently enforce a rule that says "copyright holders have to be nice/not too strict about enforcement". We might have a moral responsibility to educate reusers on the finer points of the license (in general, reusers need to initially assume that all copyright holders will be as strict as Marco Verch – that's just a fact of how copyright works even with free licenses – but perhaps we could create a template that warns reusers that a file's copyright holder is strictly enforcing the license); but we also have a responsibility to preserve freely licensed educational files for posterity and we should have good reasons when we decide to delete any, and even if we were to decide that a situation like this is a good enough reason, it should be written in policy, not just randomly done in single cases like this. Tokfo (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I expect a reasonable common sense standard. I have (obviously) have no objection to a copyright holder requiring that a licensee properly attribute the image and fix errors, but multiple cases such as the one detailed by Stefan above of the licensor sending large invoices for inconsequential errors tell me that we should exercise our judgement and not help a troll make money by exploiting the legal system. I say "exploiting" advisedly -- it is not clear that what is going on here is illegal, but it is certainly beyond ordinary use. We see on Commons that many people do not fully understand copyright or use the wrong license or license version. Asking people to pay out ~$500 for naming the wrong version and other similar insignificant mistakes is just wrong and is unworthy of the support of this community. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bowser emblem.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was deleted by a sockpuppet with a reason that's unclear. I'm curious if this file was indeed violated copyright policy (since I couldn't find any deletion requests for this file), and if it wasn't, is it possible to restore it. NotCory (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per my colleagues above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nude Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own this work. Edwardchdid (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That may be, but it is extremely unlikely that you own the right to freely license them. Copyright for works of art is very rarely transferred when the work is sold. It almost always remains with the creator and his heirs. If, in fact, you have a formal, written, license or transfer of copyright for these paintings, please send evidence of it using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: if any permissions there are, then they must be sent to OTRS. Otherwise these images of paintings can be undeleted in 2022 and 2035. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


We are the photo onwer! 我們是國立台北大學都市計畫研究所的編輯團隊,該圖片是來自於敝所之網頁,本所自有其編輯權力。任何疑問請來電+886-2-8674-1111 #67364,或來信以獲得相關資訊--Harry108996 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)harry108996

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


The picture comes directly from Prof. Jörg Böttcher, which is the head of our working group. In the past he has used this picture in various cuttings e.g. on the back cover of his books and in several publications. Especially the article which has been linked in the comment is an article written by Prof. Böttcher himself. Therefore he herwith requests for undeleting. It is not fine to close the discussion here after a very short time period (e.g. during night here in Germany) and not giving him a possibility to contribute.IOT-Autorenteam (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image has, as you say, appeared without a free license in a number of places, so policy requires that either (a) the actual copyright holder, who is usually the photographer or (b) Prof. Böttcher, must send a free license using OTRS. In case (b), Prof. Böttcher must provide evidence that he has a formal written license or copyright transfer from the photographer which allows him to freely license the image.

As for "It is not fine to close the discussion...", policy requires that obvious copyright violations are deleted on sight. The cited source has a clear copyright notice, so the rapid deletion was required by policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Stephen Stead.jpg

This is the head and shoulders shot used by the British Museum to illustrate conference speakers at Cultural Heritage events hosted by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This Stephen Stead is apparently a faculty member at the University of Southampton. He has few Google hits and no Wikipedia Article, so it is not clear that he is notable in the sense required by Commons.

As for the image, his name does not produce results in a search on The Museum's Web site has clear copyright notices, so it seems unlikely that the Museum would freely license this image even if they had the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Greetings! This photo was deleted for unclear copyright status, but the photo was uploaded by someone at MassArt (the institution that owns copyright) with the authority to make it open access. We thought that was made clear in the original upload -- can this photo be reinstated? We're happy to add any additional needed info once we can access the photo description and metadata. Thank you! AmandaRR123 (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thompsonportrait.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As clearly noted at the Deletion Request cited above, in order for this image to be restored, an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. If the owner is not the photographer, that e-mail should be accompanied by evidence that the writer holds a formal written copyright license or transfer permitting the sender to freely license the image.
Note that the original upload says that the photographer was "Massachusetts College of Art and Design Morton R Godine Library and Archive", which seems very unlikely. There is also no evidence there that User:Voltaireloving is in any way authorized to give away property of the Library. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


I created this and own full ownership of this logo Sonnyf (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)M.S.Fascia 16/03/2018

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons policy for logos requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Bonsoir, suite à un avertissement me demandant de confirmer mes droits sur cette photo, j'ai recontacter le model de la photo Jean-Pascal Hesse et le photographe Frédéric Goudon pour qu'ils confirment leur autorisation de me laisser les droits sur la photos et donc de pouvoir l'utiliser sur Wikipédia. Ils ont reçus un ticket chacun, je trouve cela déplacer de supprimer alors que je me plie à la procédure, que j'avais une semaine pour justifier et que l'on me supprimer si rapidement cette photo alors que l'on m'informe que pour répondre au ticket cela est beaucoup plus long ! Comment faire restaure l'image? Merci bien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelelbaz (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Samuelelbaz: Bonjour,
Avez-vous le numéro du ticket ? Veuillez noter que "autorisation pour Wikipedia" n'est pas suffisant. Il faut une autorisation pour une licence libre. Ce n'est pas nécessaire de réimporter le fichier. Il sera restauré quand l'autorisation est validée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Eurodiputada Beatriz Becerra.jpg

Fotografía de Eurodiputada Beatriz Becerra de su página de Flickr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyelitz (talk • contribs) 22:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Nahki Wells in Betfred, Kirkgate, Bradford.jpg

I took the photo of him myself in Betfred bookmakers, on Kirkgate in Bradford, so why exactly was it deleted? Everytime I upload a photo to Wikipedia they always seem to be deleted for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)