Commons:Undeletion requests

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 2 timestamps • 0 reasons • 3 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

134 copyvios • 4 duplicates • 3 adverts • 27 selfies • 13 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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

* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg

This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Reopened per request. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.

A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

• Previous talk: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Prasklina na okne auta 32.JPG

File in use at v:cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Volkswagen Golf/III/Variant/Juandev/Nejde otevřít nádrž and might be moved to main ns in the following days. I wonder how the user could nominate this and other files for deletion if they were in use in the WMF project. How files are used in other projects might be out of scope.--Juandev (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Assuming that Google translate is doing a good job here:

1. The photograph has no explanation of what it is and its file name does not match the photo at all
2. The caption for the place where the photo was used calls out a "cotter pin" but there is no cotter pin in the photo, so it is actually irrelevant to the place where it was used.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

File:구 제일은행 여수지점 1.jpg

• File:구 제일은행 여수지점 1.jpg
• File:구 제일은행 여수지점 2.jpg

These images are released in {{KOGL}} by Korea Heritage Service (previously known as Cultural Heritage Administration). link 1, link 2. KOGL Type 1 is a Commons-compatible license, it seems that the original uploader may have misunderstood something.--Namoroka (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that this building was bulit before 1942 during the Korea under Japanese rule.--Namoroka (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

※ko:special:diff/38476991, https://www.kogl.or.kr/info/licenseType1.do

I. 이용조건의 표시 및 변경
1. 이용자가 공공누리 저작물 활용시 출처표시를 꼭 해주셔야 합니다.
2. 공공누리 저작물의 이용조건은 변경될 수 있습니다. 다만 이용자가 이용조건 변경전 사용하셨다면 해당저작물 한해 용도변경 없이 계속 이용할 수 있습니다.

III. 공공기관의 면책
1. 공공기관은 공공저작물의 정확성이나 지속적인 제공 등을 보장하지 않습니다.
2. 공공기관 및 그 직원은 이용자가 공공저작물을 이용함으로써 발생할 수 있는 어떠한 손해나 불이익에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다.

본인은 KOGL과 CCL 라이선스가 호환되지 않는다고 판단합니다.(I believe that KOGL and CCL licenses are incompatible.)
2016년 당시나, 지금 시점이나 마찬가지입니다.(It was the same in 2016 as it is now.)
본인(메이)은 '이용자'였었고 면책 대상이 아닙니다.[I(메이) am not exempt from liability]
위키미디어 공용에서 왜 KOGL이 허용되는지까지는 모르겠습니다.(I don't know why KOGL is allowed on Wikimedia Commons.)
파일을 복구하여 저를 손해나 불이익의 당사자로 만드는 것에 절대 동의할 수 없습니다.(I absolutely cannot agree to restoring those files and making me a party to any harm or disadvantage.)
영어 내용은 구글 번역 사용하여 덧붙였고, 영어로 쓴 내용은 한글로 적은 내용에 우선하지 않습니다.(The English content was added using Google Translate, and the content written in English does not take precedence over the content written in Korean.)

감사합니다.(Thank you.)-- 메이 (토론) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, okay. This user believes that KOGL is not a free license. There was a lengthy discussion about KOGL long time ago. However, KOGL is still an accepted license here in Commons, and personal beliefs are irrelevant. If this user does not wish to upload files under his/her own name, please allow me to upload the files instead.--Namoroka (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

File:문재인 대통령, 2018 평창패럴림픽대회 선수단 출정식 참석 2018-03-02.jpg

This file was deleted through deletion requests but it was released in {{KOGL}} Type 1 in 2 March 2018 by the Blue House of South Korea. (archived link) KOGL is non-revocable. {{Change-of-KOGL}} This file was first uploaded on Commons in 7 March 2018, only four days later.-Namoroka (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The mascot character in the background seems to be fine under COM:DM.--Namoroka (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Sanshokuki2.svg

The symbol in the center (the reason for the file's prior deletion) may be too simple to exceed COM:TOO Japan. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1917–1958).svg

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually. File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1917–1958).svg
File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1958–2021).svg
File:Flag of San Bernardino County, California (2024).svg
File:Flag of San Bernardino County, California (1973–1984).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (2014–2016).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (2004–2014).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (1967–2004).svg
File:Flag of Frankfort, Kentucky (2024).svg
Swiãtopôłk (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Swiãtopôłk: Besides lack of source, most of the flags have also copytigh issues: The uploader declared them under CC0 license by them which is obviously invalid. In order to restore them we need an evidence that they are free. Ankry (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For Dayton and everything from California it will be no problem. One was created before 1929 [3], the second is the work of an anonymous official, and the next five match PD-CAGov. The last one is actually a problem, skip it if it is not simple enough to be below the US TOO. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Chicago Police Department.png

The only element that might deserve protection is the seal of the city of Chicago, but that is at least 120 years old and we have it here - File:Seal of Chicago, Illinois.svg, I don't know what this file looked like exactly, I found its existence by accident, my arguments refer to the flag that looks like this [4] Swiãtopôłk (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The seal has changed many times since its first use, see https://design.chicago.gov/city-seal. The 1990 version shown on the flag is still under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward According to what you sent, the 1905 version is indeed different, but the current version, the one we currently have, is almost the same as the 1918 version (there is a bit less detail, but from what I know there is not even an official standardization of these elements and I don't think that a less detailed image can have a different copyright status than a more detailed and older one). Swiãtopôłk (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Detail is important in copyright law. Also note that the 1975 version is the first one that is in color and going from B&W to color clearly creates a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I still think that the seals differ too little for one to be in the public domain and the other not. I see that you have nominated the seal itself for removal, so I will write a response with my arguments gathered there. It will be more transparent, and besides, there is no point in discussing the flag before the seal is confirmed, so this request can be closed, I will return to this issue later. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Audrey Whitby Instagram April 2020.png

This image can and will be re-uploaded with proper permission. User talk:Techoliver298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techoliver298 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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.

 Oppose It is a waste of time resources to reload an image and against Commons rules to do so. Images are never actually deleted. If an image was incorrectly removed from public view it can be restored without reloading. This was apparently an Instagram image not your own work as you claimed. That cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Techoliver298: The proper license needs to be granted prior to undeletion. Ankry (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:2000 Today Ident BBC1.png

Please undeleted because it was copyrighted by the BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordisk Plus (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No evidence that BBC granted the CC0 license. Ankry (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Ankry. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Bulan_Loi_Luean.ogg

Por medio de la presente, solicito la restauración del archivo en cuestión, ésto debido a que no se presentó reclamo directo por el intérprete de la obra.

Con éste argumento como principal y aludiendo que el intérprete habría originalmente permitido que ésta obra ingresara al extenso catálogo de archivos de Wikimedia Commons, también solicito que, en caso de que no sea posible restaurar el archivo en la página "Bulan Loi Luean" de Wikipedia (en inglés), se deje enlace hacia la página original de donde provenía originalmente el archivo eliminado o donde se encontraba.

--Maurigvv23 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Standard YouTube license at source. Performance is presumed unfree, and it doesn't matter if the performer makes a claim, we require an explicit free license in this case. COM:PCP Abzeronow (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Handtekening Julia Boschman.png

I would say that files on Wikimedia Commons should be treated/reviewed equally. If you agree, it's fair that this singer's deleted signature I uploaded be restored. I saw that the signatures of a few world stars have been released in exactly the same way as I did with this signature. And these are signatures that have been on Wikimedia Commons for many years and are therefore accepted. With one of those famous singers, the signature released here on Wikimedia is derived from the signature being placed on a card, which is also the case with this singer (Julia Boschman). And there are sources for that too. So why should the signature I released need an exception? What's the difference? I can give the names of my examples if you want, so you can see for yourself. --Aaron371 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a signature of a Dutch person. I don't know if the Netherlands protects signatures (there is also a star added to the signature) @Ymblanter: Abzeronow (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow No different than in English speaking countries, I can give an example if you want. Aaron371 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Which English speaking countries? India and UK protects signatures, the United States doesn't. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There are so many signatures on the Dutch wikipedia's and I also received confirmation of this almost a year ago from a Dutch Wikipedia moderator. So yes, signatures are allowed, provided the signature is real. Aaron371 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not know, I am sorry. Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Nana Mitch Portrait.jpg

A VRTS release has been sent to the team responsible for checking it, and I believe this image was deleted unfairly without checking the corresponding response for the release of this image. With the following ticket#2024121210010372 number. --Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

When and if permission is approved, a VRT agent will either undelete the file or will request undeletion of the file. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not now: per Abzeronow. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:SueCrolick Art Buddies.jpg

Undelete SueCrolick_Art_Buddies.jpg

This photo was taken by Heidi Rich who uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Permission was granted to Heidi Rich on July 3, 2024 (Ticket#2024070310012601). The image was removed by Gbawden on Sept. 20 for missing permission. Please advise as to how to correct the missing photo.--Ruska Field (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Krd: Thuresson (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:WHDF (2024).svg

Now in actual use Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)