Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Ordinanza del Giudice per le indagini preliminari respingente le accuse di diffamazione verso Cécile Kyenge.pdf

This document was an Italian court judgement, that if I remember well, as any other judgement pronounced by a court in Italy, should have been released in the public domain. In fact, this same file can be obtained directly from the official website of the "Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Milano". Anyway, since it can't be directly linked (one can download it through a php form after inserting the judgement number) I have uploaded it here to link it through the special property related to Commons to its wikidata element. --Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Italy seems to indicate that at least government documents may not be Public Domain. Do you have any source that judgements from Italian courts are in the Public Domain? I have tried to find the judgement in questions via this site, but had no luck neither with 28558/15 (R.G.N.R.) nor with 14428/16 (R.G.G.I.P.), the two numbers given at the top of the document. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Italian Copyright Law, at Article 5 says:
"The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." (WIPO translation)
A court judgement is certainly an "official act of... public administration", so I think this is PD.
With that said, though, there remains the question of whether it is in scope. There are millions of court judgements available electronically and I can not, offhand, recall that Commons hosts any of them. Neither Roe v Wade nor Brown v Board of Education are hosted on Commons and they are arguably two of the most important cases in the last hundred years. Why is this judgement more important than Brown v Board? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:(Jim), I'm sorry that I haven't provided all the needed details on my first post, I hope this second answer can remedy to that; although I can still be considered a novice to online interactions with wiki* community, I think I can still persuade you that this file can stay.
Symbol support vote.svg Support About the public domain status of the document, it should be made available on the page @Srittau: linked, as per court order, but unfortunately the retrieval tool, as many other PA (public administration) web tools in Italy, doesn't work at all for me. Anyway, as specified in my previously linked news, the document can be copied going directly to the tribunal, as the journalist of the national newspaper I took the file from, probably did.
As for the project scope, that is "making available public domain and freely-licensed media content providing instructional or informative knowledge to all", I think this document, as any other court sentence, perfectly complies with it.
Even if the argument you used (the fact that more important judgements are not hosted on this site) is logically inconsistent (no one has done this, so is forbidden), one can easily observe that the two cases you mentioned have their court judgement hosted officially by their state web infrastructure. This is obviously not the case here, since on the contrary we don't have the luck to have a government capable of keeping online his judgements, and that's the main reason I am trying to upload this file her, otherwise lacking the chance to use it for reference use in a wiki project.
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You still have not explained the importance of this document -- most of us do not read Italian and therefore have no idea why it should be an exception to a long standing method of operation. Please give us a summary of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The black Italian MP Cécile Kyenge was called publicly orangutan by the racist Lega Nord MP Roberto Calderoli in 2013; the official party pressroom defended his "position"; Kyenge then published an article saying that the party is racist; after that, the party sued her for defame.
This is the judgement declaring that she didn't defame Lega Nord. In general I need this document to reference the wikidata entry about the sentence and eventually reference a statement affirming that Lega Nor is a racist party (in the future).
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-09-08 Antonio Umberto Riccò, Koodinator deutsch-italienische Arbeitsgruppe Unser Herz schlägt auf Lampedusa, (13).JPG

Symbol support vote.svg Support Antonio Umberto Riccò ist in meinen Augen relevant, Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Relevanter Autor: [1][2][3][4]. --Stobaios (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-04-20 Beate Albrecht, Schauspielerin, Jenseits vom Tag, Haus der Region Hannover (2).JPG

Beate Albrecht wieder herstellen und in ihrem Artikel einbinden und bitte keine Massenlöschungen mehr, dann kommt so etwas auch nicht vor. Denke mal sie ist die Autorin oder? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Beate Albrecht ist Schauspielerin und Autorin aus Witten, GND 131419900, in der Presse wegen ihrer Theaterstücke gegen Rassismus [5][6][7][8]. --Stobaios (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Artikel ist über jemand anderes. Aber Symbol support vote.svg Support per Stobaios. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG“

Wenn das eine Schauspielerin ist, dann sollte sie relevant sein oder, wenn ja bitte auch

File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (3).JPG
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (2).jpg
File:2014-12-06 Sabine Schiller alias Gisela (X-Diaries), hier am Kröpcke in Hannover (1).jpg
Wiederherstellen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Spielte vier Jahre in der TV-Serie w:de:X-Diaries von w:de: RTL 2. --Stobaios (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Scheint überhaupt keine Rezeption in den Medien erfahren zu haben. Google findet im wesentlichen nur ihre Homepage und die Seite von RTL 2. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Moment, vier Jahre Serie spielen ist nicht so relevant, wie eine Schauspielerin mit drei noch schlechteren Schmuddelfilmen? -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Wo habe ich irgendetwas über die Qualität der Serie gesagt. Die Schauspielerin hat aber anscheinend so gut wie keine mediale oder sonstige Rezeption erfahren (zumindest laut Google), trotz vier Jahren. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Sebari, sorry ich meinte Dich nicht, sondern die Rezessionen im Netz. ;) -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Man with barcode hair - Japan April 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This type of comb-over is unique in Japan, was in use at the time of deletion, it has public value (which gives it right to be filmed even if I showed the face) but to extra careful and respect the person's wishes in the photo I blurred the face for annonymous value. Even Japanese TV shows pictures of people in public with blurred faces, there is no illegal or breaking rules if the face is blurred. An admin rushed in (maybe couldn't understand the Japanese comments on the page?) and deleted this image when it was perfectly valid and OK. I strongly request that it be undeleted as I think the admin was being unfair, there was no reason for it to even be nominated. It was nominated by a troll who had been uploading copyrighted images. I'm quite frustrated here. Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality and value, clear violation of Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Japan. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Why was it low quality? Where is there a higher quality image of a "bar code" haircut? And it is NOT a violation of that page. Read it. If there is value to society, use on Wikipedia, it is not in violation. AND it was blurred, that consent is for identifiable people. Japanese newspapers/TV always shows people without consent if their face is blurred. Nesnad (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: This is clearly ageist. He is being deleted for his age and your bias against his haircut. There ARE BILLIONS of identifiable Japanese people images without clear definitions of consent or not on Wikipedia, are you gonna delete this one next? In use by a billion Wikis? This is madness. Nesnad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So according to this comment and the one on my user page, I am unfair, biased, ageist, haircutist, and I don't want to look bad by changing my opinion. Any other accusation to throw at me while you're at it? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, let me calm down, I am just really upset. The Japanese user claimed all these horrible things in Japanese (I was a pervert etc) and then suddenly it got deleted which I felt was unfair. I don't mean you are bad at all. I am trying to talk about your ACTIONS. I feel they are unfair and biased. And yes, I have met so many Wikipedia users that won't change their opinion because they don't want to "look bad" and want to keep their power. Sigh. That's the way the ball rolls I guess. Are you going to just say I am calling you names (sorry again wasn't my intent) or reply to my question about how it is unfair when clearly you are showing a bias towards this image which has no reason to be deleted. Nesnad (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : The personality rights issue is not that critical as the face is obscured/censored. We cannot tell who the individual is. I have attempted to crop the image so that only the hair is visible and I am left with a 350x269px image which is far too resolution to be worth the trouble. Hence I am upholding the deletion. I would suggest User:Nesnad to try to get permission to comply with Japanese privacy law allowing us to have a higher resolution file. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reopened. Three and a half hours is far too fast for an image that is a close call.

I looked at this very hard yesterday before it was deleted and decided that it was too close a call for me to close one way or the other. After a day's thought, I Symbol support vote.svg Support keeping it. It is certainly not a problem for personality rights. Given the angle and the blur, even his spouse wouldn't know him. I think it will be useful in a summary of men's hair styles. Given the fact that President Trump uses a similar style, we probably should have such an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that "not even his wife would know him." The person is very recognizable and I'd argue that even most acquaintances would be able to recognize him. I don't know the standards of Japan, but in Germany this would certainly be a violation of personality rights and the Japanese rules sound similar to the rules over here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Srittau, if you want to blur the face more, then do it, but deleting an image suddenly that was in no violation when you don't know the standards of Japan as you said yourself, is a clear example of acting too quickly. This needs to be undeleted especially because you or someone else has not provided a suitable replacement image for this unique and interesting hairstyle that was being illustrated by the image. There is no reason to crop the image more, you guys are acting like this hairstyle is something this man is ashamed of. The only reason I blurred the face was to respect the wishes of anonymousness. We shouldn't be assigning shame to this hairstyle by saying "nobody could recognize him" as if there is some sort of problem with this style. We should blur it enough to make the man anonymous if you all wish (although by the link provided earlier there isn't even a requirement to blur in Japan when the image adds value to society. This was illustrating over three pages on Wikipedia. It was in use. Normally images are discussed more before deleting if they are in use. This is so frustrating. Gosssh. Nesnad (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sebari, why do you ignore me when I point out you even admited you don't know the standards of Japan when you deleted a perfectly OK picture? :( Nesnad (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (311) Edeltraut-Inge Geschke.JPG

Symbol support vote.svg Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Engagierte und beliebte Kommunalpolitikerin (Hannover Nord) [9][10][11][12]. --Stobaios (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


This file: Mather IVO Berkshire, England - 1944 is in the public domain. It was deleted in error. Please restore it.

Thank you,

Sean Mather 16 February 2017 Sdmather (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sean, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer and that the image is under copyright (putting a CC license on the image requires that you own the copyright). Now you say that it is PD.

Your being the photographer is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely. There is no obvious reason why it would be PD. When and where was it first published? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I put it in the public domain, myself. It's my photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmather (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (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.
I notice that according to your user page the subject on this 1944 photo has a grandson named Sean Mather. Would you like to comment on this? Can you give us some more information about your trip to England in 1944? Thuresson (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You carefully avoided the question above. That's not going to get this image restored. Were you the photographer? When and where was it first published? Both of those questions are critical to the status of the photograph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Conrad Heberling

Prof. Dr. Conrad Heberling is one of the most renowned tv-manager in german speaking Europe. He just been honored with the renowned award "Media Manager of the year" of the Academy of New Media in the city of Kulmbach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Chester (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Lina Baumberger (grayscale).jpg, File:Chalet Sutermeister.jpg and File:Hans Martin Sutermeister 1961 (cropped).jpg

These files has been nominated by a vandal IP, and some related files has been already nominated and kept. @Natuur12, could you explain why you deleted these files? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandal IP? Anyways, I believe those photogaphs are to creative for {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} (though File:Chalet Sutermeister.jpg can be considered borderline). Plus there is no evidence of a PD status in the US. Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a comment on this particular UnDR, just a general heads up: There is an IP going around nominating all files relating to the Sutermeister family for deletion. Some nominations may be justified, but care should be taken as there is clearly an ulterior motive at play here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree completely with Natuur12 -- one borderline (and borderline quality as well) and two creative -- but even if we are wrong, it must be proven that they were first published in Switzerland. We have no evidence of that here. If they were first published anywhere else, then they are almost certainly still under copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg

a simple letter and geometric logo, no need for a deletion. its a typical Wdwd thing, he is well known in german wikipedia for deletions like this Norschweden (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
of cause it is, the logo is made of two circles, a V a W a, two triangles, two rectangles, and 2 semicircles Norschweden (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A close call. Probably below the ToO in the USA, but as I understand it, probably above the ToO in Germany. Ultimately everything is made up of simple components. The question is not the components, but whether they are creatively arranged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
its also below ToO in germany Norschweden (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
because its just gemetric stuff and two letters Norschweden (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Germany had a much (MUCH) higher threshold than the U.S. for logos, until recently -- logos had "clearly surpass the average design" to be copyrightable. A 2013 ruling overturned that though, with this: When assessing whether a work of applied art reaches the level of creativity necessary for copyright protection, it must be taken into consideration that the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use, but is based on artistic creativity. It must further be considered that a level of creativity that, while providing grounds for copyright protection, is still only slight, results in a correspondingly narrow scope of protection for the work in question. That ruling does involve "aesthetic effect" where the U.S. does not, but does seem to limit it to artistic creativity -- and also mentions that the scope of protection is pretty narrow, so that uses in derivative works would presumably rarely be infringing. If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways, though the basic letters and arrangement probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi, i think that the rationale of this deletion request is completely wrong. I've no doubt, that Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin is the copyright owner of his microscopic images. We need this PDF with it's licence as source of the extracted version. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Irrespective of the licence, this appears to have been a single image stored as PDF. Photographic images at Commons should be stored as JPG but not as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, nobody needs the PDF, but i can not put the licence to the new JPG version. An admin or trusted user may prove, that the licence is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gary Connery fly with wingsuit without parachute and lands on water.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I found that license for this picture is "Creative common" as has video in youtube. Nickieros (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This video at YouTube has a Standard YouTube license which is not Creative Commons and non-free. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done "License: Standard YouTube License". Thuresson (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Series of Tubes - Senator Ted Stevens.ogg

recording from senate / c-span falls under: and and as such I believe is public domain

--TimofeiT9 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Philip Hitti.jpg

This file has for sure no copy rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moußsa (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Antonio Miguel Pérez (cantante).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have permission use it and the picture is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Look this link: Marjotsy (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Antonio Miguel Pérez en Plató.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have permission use it and this picture is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Look this link: Marjotsy (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)