Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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

Other languages:

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)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
59 copyvios • 152 duplicates • 6 adverts • 2 selfies • 59 others
v • d • e

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 | +/−

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:The Route.jpg

The user had contacted VRT users before (see: {{RaftFilms Permission}})

Not sure but as far as I can remember these two images had been published on Commons for the first time so netcopyvio is not valid.

Hanooz 18:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS images

Images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) were once non-free many years ago, but are now under CC-BY (https://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use). SDSS images that were deleted in the past should be restored.

Note that SDSS is different from the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), which allows non-commercial use only; see Commons:Village pump#Digitized Sky Survey. There seems to have been confusion between DSS and SDSS in some old deletion requests, so some of these images might still be non-free.

Deletion requests found with "SDSS", there are surely more:

SevenSpheres (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Although I  Support this line of reasoning, note that we must verify that each image is currently posted with the new license. Any images that do not exist on the current site have only the old license and must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is the relevant part, not the part about the SDSS website: All SDSS data released in our public data releases are considered in the public domain. So SDSS image data is in the public domain actually, not CC-BY. That includes, for example, the SDSS data available through Aladin, which I think is the source of most of these images. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They also told Unless otherwise stated, images should be credited to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We provide all images on a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) in there website Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Jameslwoodward), I did a google search on "have Sloan sdss images always been public domain".
Annoyngly, google now seems to use AI to summarize and try to interpret results, meaning I couldn't link to it. More annoyingly, the same search provides a slightly different answer, each time. But, one time, it provided an explanation for why some of its earliest images were not (immediately) considered "free". In its earliest years, as a courtesy to researchers, images were not made available under a free lisence, right away, so researchers wouldn't worry about being scooped, until after they published their paper. Once the grace period was over, and researchers were presumed to have had time to publish their papers, then all images were considered free. If I understood what it was saying, all images uploaded to their official website are considered free, even from the early years, when their mages were not initially free. Those initially unfree images weren't supposed to be uploaded to their website, until the grace period had passed.
If I understood it, any non-free images someone here acquired, through industrial espionage, or a leaker, would now be considered free, because the grace period expired over fifteen years ago. Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Before 2017, SDSS images were under a non-commercial license. In 2017 this was changed to a free license. Compare the old SDSS image use page with the current page, and see the old update to the Commons category and undeletion request from that time. There was certainly no "industrial espionage, or a leaker" involved here. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, SDSS images are in public domain Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orelha (Cão).png

See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2026-02#File:Orelha (Cão).png.

@Yann: This AI image can be used to illustrate pt:Caso do cão Orelha. It was widely used in the media, and it was deleted before we knew it was AI generated: "Foto do Orelha, usada por imprensa e famosos, é falsa e gerada por IA" (The photo of Orelha, used by the press and celebrities, is fake and generated by AI)... And @Thuresson: in case you didn't see, the discussion you mentioned isn't even finished yet (update: It's finished and the article has been kept). Also, pt:Orelha (cão) and pt:Caso do cão Orelha are two different pages. heylenny (talk/edits) 20:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Heylenny: First, you declared that YOU are the original author of the image; that false declaration is serious violation of policy. Second, Own work declaration is accepted in Commons ONLY for unpublished works; for anything else that is used eg. in the net the uploader is REQUIRED to provide a free license EVIDENCE, not a free license DECLARATION. Third, as Yann is not Portuguese Wikipedia editor, his opinion whether Portuguese Wikipedia users prefers AI-generated image over a real image is irrelevant. It is up to you to provide evidence of such consensus. Ankry (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Where, exactly, with evidence, do I say that "[I am] the original author of the image"? I did not say that and did not even upload it. Also, when the image is undeleted, the "author" and "permission" must be corrected using the {{PD-algorithm}} template, as I said before. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my mistake, it was declared "Own work" by the uploader not by you.
|source=Own work
|author=110280Andre
and here attemted to grant a license on-wiki:
== Licensing ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
Anyway, we have no valid license at the moment. Ankry (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The valid license is {{PD-algorithm}}: "This file is in the public domain because it is the work of a computer algorithm or artificial intelligence and does not contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim."! heylenny (talk/edits) 18:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have to believe that if this AI creation looks enough like the real dog to be useful, creation must have required carefully worded lengthy explicit instructions. Commons and the case law have not yet fully defined when an AI image has required enough specific instructions to be over the ToO, but this surely is a case where {{PD-algorithm}} does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have precedents, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Gaza.webm, showing that the idea that a "carefully worded, lengthy prompt" automatically exceeds the ToO is not established consensus. Those files were way more complex, commercially produced, and of known authorship, yet it was kept under {{PD-algorithm}}. By contrast, the Orelha dog image depicts an extremely common type of dog in Brazil and does not appear to require any particularly sophisticated or highly creative prompt. heylenny (talk/edits) 18:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png

The image of the coat of arms has been published as part of an official text (see [1]) and thus meets the criterion at COM:NOP Slovenia exempting from copyright "municipal coats of arms" that have been published as part of official texts. --TadejM (t/p) 16:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited page has "© 2022 Lex Localis" and Section I, Articles 2 and 3, of the decree have a variety of restrictions that amount to an ND license. There is nothing like a free license there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Lex localis nor the municipality can claim copyright on materials that are exempted from copyright per the Slovenian legislation (cited on COM:NOP Slovenia). --TadejM (t/p) 13:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The act mentions explicitly only text of legal acts, not images. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion directly contradicts COM:NOP Slovenia, which is based on scholarly sources. --TadejM (t/p) 21:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I would trust COM:NOP Slovenia and what a Slovenian would say about their country's laws. Abzeronow (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vinicius_Sgarbe_outside_a_cafe_in_Florence,_Italy_(25_November_2025).jpg

Requesting undeletion of this file.

I am the uploader and the copyright holder of this photograph (own work). The file was uploaded to serve as the lead image illustrating a new Wikipedia biography article about the Brazilian journalist Vinícius Sgarbe, and it has clear educational value.

The image was uploaded under a free license. Please restore the file. If needed, I can immediately update or correct any missing metadata on the file page after restoration (source/author/date/location, categories, and any other identification details required by Commons).

The photo was taken in Florence, Italy, on 25 November 2025 and depicts the subject in a public street setting.

Thank you. Aroldo Henrique Pegoraro de Almeida (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Although the requester has only eight total edits globally and is the only contributor to Vinícius Sgarbe, I am inclined to think that the subject is sufficiently notable so that the article will be accepted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the concerns that may arise in situations like this, and I appreciate the attention given to compliance with Commons and Wikipedia policies.
It is clear that every new article must begin somewhere. The development of a biography on Wikipedia is often incremental: references are established first, structure is improved over time, and additional contributors may join as the subject gains broader attention. While the journalist in question does not yet have multiple editors contributing to the page, the article is supported by independent, reliable sources. The assessment of notability rests on the existence and quality of such sources, not on the current number of contributors.
Regarding the image, I respectfully submit that it aligns with Wikimedia Commons requirements:
  • The photograph is my own work.
  • It was uploaded under a free license compatible with Commons.
  • It was taken in a public setting.
  • It serves a clear encyclopedic purpose as the lead image of a biographical article.
Under Wikipedia’s standards for biographies, a freely licensed portrait has clear educational value. It enables readers to identify the subject and supports the encyclopedic function of the entry. The image is not promotional in nature and is not being used for decorative purposes; it is intended solely to illustrate the person discussed in the article.
If any metadata, categorization, or documentation needs refinement to better comply with Commons policies, I am fully willing to correct it promptly and to follow any guidance provided. My intention is to contribute in accordance with the rules and to learn from the process where improvements are necessary.
Thank you for considering the request within the framework of Wikimedia’s policies and standards. Aroldo Henrique Pegoraro de Almeida (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nocturne-2.1.1.png

The software depicted is free and open source under the MIT license (Commons-compatible). Pinging deleting admin @Krd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC) Edit: The license has been changed to Apache, but it doesn't matter, since it's still Commons-compatible. Also source. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 21:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Note that the Apache license requires that the full text of the license accompany all use. That's 1,579 words. The upload is in violation of the license because it does not include the full text. Although we technically allow licenses that require the full text of the license to accompany the image, note that that makes use difficult here (any article using this image will have to include the full text of the license in the article) and makes use in print even more difficult.

I also note that the upload includes two images. The status of them is not clear. Finally, User:QuaintCable claimed that the image was their own work which is plainly not true. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Apache-2.0}} template is made specifically for tagging apache-licensed files and software screenshots. The template links to the full license text, so the license terms are followed, otherwise the template would've been nominated for deletion (also, this is completely unrelated to the file). The erroneous "Own work" template can easily be removed, and if the license is wrong (a lot of screenshots are tagged CC by amateur users), it can easily be replaced with the correct one. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 04:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim: The Apache license is OK on Commons for software and related content. Yann (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I know -- I just think it is bad policy because as a practical matter it makes print use impossible. And, by the way, the comment above that the template linked to the license makes it OK is probably wrong. The license says "You must give any other recipients of the Work or derivative Works a copy of this License...". Note that it says "must give", not "must link to".

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Université de Technologie de Compiègne - parking de l'UTC peinture pochoir Einstein.jpg

Hello volunteer participants active on the red-linked files page :-)
This picture has been released with a free license CC BY-SA 4.0.

  1. 0,71% of the surface of the 2,400 x 1,600 pixels of this large photograph is covered by a very small painting (153 x 178 pixels) of Albert Einstein.
  2. Public domain derivative from File:Albert Einstein sticks his tongue 1951.jpg © Arthur Sasse, 1951. I think the re-coloration doesn't sufficiently transform the original work for it to have its own copyright.
  3. De minimis per COM:DM France: "French case law states that the said artwork must not be intentionally included as an element of the setting: its presence in the picture must be unavoidable". The main subject is the parking, and Albert Einstein is unavoidable in this view of the parking (like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is unavoidable on the Cour Napoléon).
  4. Parking itself (without Albert Einstein) intentionally uploaded the same day in 2017, view of the same car park from another angle.
  5. Educational image per COM:INUSE, as another version of the same place was used on Wikipedia between 2017 and 2025 (and 2026).

In summary: Derivative work, including a tiny part of another derivative work created from a famous PD photograph of 1951, publicly released on a wall with exterior texture and deterioration by rains, visible from the street, useful image, CC BY-SA 4.0 and everything under French laws allowing exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".
What is the reward, lucky participant? 1) The file will be available again, and 2) My own take of the Louvre will be uploaded on Commons as well, properly categorized, and marked {{De minimis}} :-) Thanks for your attention. Enjoy the moment -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although the image is small, it is dead center and both the file name and the description call out the Einstein image. That makes it hard to support a DM claim. Case law has established that colorization creates a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:PSLV-C62 pre-launch infographic.jpg

The Owener allowed me to use the image https://x.com/i/status/2005888433160630636 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah1099 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per my oppose below (should these be bundled?) HurricaneZetaC 23:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source of this image is www.indianspaceflight.in which is licensed CC-BY-SA-NC. Commons does not allow NC licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Infographic of ISRO's 100 launches.jpg

The Owener allowed me to use the image https://x.com/i/status/2005888433160630636 and for this the person involved in creating this image also allowed me to use https://x.com/i/status/2004167743910637576 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah1099 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Abdullah1099, there is contradictory licensing here. While the X post says that it's CC-BY-SA 4.0, the site's notice says that it's CC-BY-SA-NC 4.0. You should ask the admin to change the license there to CC-BY-SA 4.0. HurricaneZetaC 23:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source of this image is www.indianspaceflight.in which is licensed CC-BY-SA-NC. Commons does not allow NC licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Premiere Maxx (Musician).jpg

Original photo from source, not stealing anyones work. under the now moniker "Premiere Maxx" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priveekups (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This musician doesn't have an entry on any Wikimedia project and is unlikely to be notable. The file is out of scope as Commons is not a webhost and files have to be realistically educationally useful. HurricaneZetaC 23:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose: OP is clearly w:WP:NOTHERE; I requested a few moments ago that the Wikidata page they created be deleted as promotion Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 05:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ies-bernardodebalbuena.jpg"

Es una foto de la página del ayuntamiento. No tiene derechos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcialbarloz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose File:Ies-bernardodebalbuena.jpg. No specific source given in the upload, so it is impossible to be sure, but the town's web site has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bambole di Pezza.png

The metadata showed the image had not been taken from a random website but was the original picture, most likely uploaded by the photographer himself. This deletion needed to be discussed. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was a photo from a professional photo shoot, already present on the web before being uploaded here. The photographer has copyright on it, so it cannot being reuploaded without explicit permission from him.--Janik98 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It has zero importance whether the image had already been circulated elsewhere. The file uploaded here contained the original metadata so it was either uploaded by the creator or the original had been found God knows where. In any case, it should have been clarified with the uploader before any rushed deletion. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy is clear. Any image that has appeared elsewhere, whether in print or on the Web, before its upload to Commons, must be confirmed by a free license sent using VRT.

This policy is in place because, contrary to the comments above, it is perfectly possible for a third party to have a copy of an image with full EXIF without having a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And you still didn’t ask the uploader to confirm before the speedy deletion. They might have simply been unfamiliar with the policy, so I don’t know why my point is being ignored so blatantly. Restore the image and ask the uploader to send confirmation. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have enough experience here to be familiar with policy, so this exchange surprises me. A "Speedy Deletion" is just that -- when an Admin sees an obvious copyvio, which this is, since it appears in many places on the Web, the image is deleted immediately. In a perfect world, we could do as you ask, but we have only 25 Admins who do most of the work here and they have a backlog of over 8,000 DRs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but it’s unfair. It pushes new contributors away and in this case the image provided was of great help because it showed the subject neatly. I would agree with you if the image had been uploaded by an experienced user, but the one in question only created an account here to share two images about the same topic. I’ll see if I can get him to upload the file again complete with license. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kamil Piotrowski. Aktor.jpg

A proper agreement from author has been received. See ticket:2026011610005316. Polimerek (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Polimerek: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=1151099667"