Commons:Undeletion requests

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


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

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

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

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

File:Nakaminato Library in Hitachinaka.jpg

This photo was deleted due to the wrong deletion request judgement. This photo was originally uploaded to calil(カーリル). We can use photos originally uploaded to calil under CC BY 2.1 JP license. It is announced at here and here. File:Rikuzentakata City Library - みょ.jpg is also from calil and it is allowed to upload with passing the license review. If Wikimedia commons can't accept photos from calil, File:Rikuzentakata City Library - みょ.jpg's license review was mistake and it should be deleted. --Miyuki Meinaka (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miya and Yasu: can you help us here? Ankry (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don;t see any CC license on the linked page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Miyuki Meinaka: Please explain more precisely: where exactly we can see the declared license and how this license declaration relates to the image you wish to undelete. Without precise information why the particular license applies to the particular image we cannot go on here. And, as you can see, we lack Japanese-speaking advanced users. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
undelete as per . these photos of libraries uploaded by users are specifically licensed under ccby. RZuo (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: → "写真投稿の注意" = "Caution of photo posting", "撮影した画像にはCCライセンス(CC-BY) が適用されます。図書館の紹介などのため第三者に提供される場合がありますので予めご了承ください。" = "Photos you took are applied to CC license (CC-BY). Please note that your photos may be provided to a third party to introduce libraries." If you click the word "CCライセンス(CC-BY)", you will get "CC BY 2.1 JP" license page.
Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. The link to the licensing page shown above can be found on that website by clicking the dropdown menu on the right side just above the orange button and selecting the last entry. So photos there come with a CC BY 2.1 JP licence. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Museo Virtual "Alto Bierzo" uploaded by Galopax

License has changed per , User:Galopax/mv-ab, and (the latter two in Spanish). Please ping me and Galopax.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is unclear to me who should be attributed as the photographer and why the museum is authorised to grant a free license if the author is aunknown. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Galopax as uploader.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About who should be attributed as the photographer and why the museum is authorized to grant a free license if the author is unknown, it must be taken into account that this's a series of photographs collected by a researcher and director of the Museum "Alto Bierzo", now retired, commissioned by the City Council of Bembibre, photographs, many of them, more than 70 years ago. And, most probably, all of them of unknown author, some of them because of their antiquity, the most modern ones as passport type photographs, and they could even be taken by photo booth type machines, none of them associated with an artistic image or author.
These photographs, which were once presented publicly, as noted in the introduction to this link (in Spanish), are in a space in the building of the City Council itself, as can be seen in this omnioramic image.
Why, how its authorship is attributed, what kind of license, authorization or similar supports this exhibition, this use, are questions that I think it's not appropriate to raise or question that institution, museum or city council.
Yes a management was made, in 2017-03-31, through email, in which it is made participant of the initiative Virtual Museum "Alto Bierzo" to responsible for the said Museum "Alto Bierzo" and, through it, to the Department of Culture of the City Council of Bembibre, a link that is maintained, as communication of 2022-01-26, in which the change of license from GNU to CC BY-SA is commented, a circumstance that, in turn, and for public knowledge, is reflected in the Wiki itself.
The first mail, from 2017, receives a response on 2017-05-11, in which it's stated: "With respect to the project Virtual Museum "Alto Bierzo", from the Department of Culture, Tourism and Festivals of the City Council of Bembibre, its authorization is given so that it can continue with the same", a project in Wiki mode, online, with link submitted and analyzed by these people, and containing specific information on license.
With this background, it has been considered validated the upload to Wikimedia Commons of photographs published in this virtual museum, in some way a reflection of a real one, even if equipped with many other photographs, most of them of own production, and other specific resources (Category:Museo Virtual "Alto Bierzo").
In any case, if there were any other question to raise, I would try to answer it. Best regards.--Galopax (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Reinhardhauke

Please restore the following pages:


The DRs mention this " "Glasmalerei H. Maier Neuenahr 1926" " If these windows were installed in 1926, they'd now be public domain in the US. The glassmaker does have a category in Commons: Category:Glasmalerei H. Maier (Bad Neuenahr) so it's possible these are public domain in Germany. @Rosenzweig: for their knowledge of German copyright law. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accd. to [1], the windows shown in the last three files are by "Glasmalerei H. Maier". But since the artist Heinrich Maier died in 1923, I'm not sure if those windows were still done by him or by some successor working for his company. I'm also unsure about File:Bachem (Ahrweiler) St.Leonardus Fenster246.JPG. That window is apparently the work of a Cologne artist named Franz Xaver Reuter. I couldn't find out when he died, he seems to have been still active in 1934. So it's possible he died no later than 1951, but I don't know. The "Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon" (AKL) online has an entry for Reuter, but no death date. --Rosenzweig τ 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuter created work does seem problematic since we don't have a death date for him and 1926 is too young for PD-old-assumed. The other 3 seem like they're still possibly public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly public domain, yes. But the fact that they were apparently installed in 1926, while Heinrich Maier died in 1923, makes it rather unlikely that he was the artist that did them, at least in my opinion. That leaves someone else working for his company (that apparently continued to exist after his death) as the artist, but we don't have a clue who that could have been. If we wanted to go for {{PD-old-assumed}}, that would mean 2047. --Rosenzweig τ 17:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Football Card.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Football Card.jpg

"This person played for the Green Bay Packers until 1926". If this is a 1920s card, then the copyright for it has now likely expired. If this is restored, I also request that this file be renamed so it becomes more educationally useful. Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The card shows "Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame" in the upper left. The subject was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1977, so the card cannot be from 1926. Since he played only until 1926, the photo is likely from then, which leaves two questions -- does the card have a copyright aside from the one for the photo and, if not, when was the photo first published? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So it's more or less the same source as File:Charlie Mathys Green Bay Packers.webp which listed as a source. Nailing down the first publication of the photograph might be tough. EDIT: I have found a 1924 team photograph that might be the source of Mathys pics here the site says that the photograph was likely printed in the 1960s or 1970s though. Also the Packers site has a high quality version of that photograph here (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct that it is a crop from a team photo, but not that one. In the one cited above, the right side (viewer's right) of his face is completely black and the hands of the player behind him show behind his right (his right) ear. Both sides of the subject image are equally lighted and the background is players' pants with no hands in sight. Also, now that I look again, I'm inclined to think that the footballs in the Hall of Fame card have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that myself. The 1923 Packers team photograph is the source of one of those Mathys photos. I've seen a credit of that photograph to "Stiller Photo". For example this ebay listing: Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Photographer of the 1923 photograph appears to be Otto Stiller who died in 1972. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dit Clapper.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dit Clapper.jpg

This feels worth revisiting. If this was published in 1926, it would unquestionably be public domain in the US. Original DR suggested this was a Canadian photograph and this being pre-1946 would have definitely been PD in both Canada and the US. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the original image here. Our upload was actually just a crop. The caption mentions the "late 1920s" so I think pre-1927 is still too early to be PD in the US. On the other hand I can't see a copyright notice either. De728631 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's difficult to get a date on it but Getty is crediting Bruce Bennett who might have had it in his collection but definitely was not the photographer. The page does also say "Erstellt am: 1. Januar 1926" but looking at English wiki, 1927 seems a little more likely but of course 1928 and 1929 still also possible Abzeronow (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Jusjih

Please restore the following pages:

— for Mr. T, only undelete the 22:16, 15 January 2006 file by Hannibal, as the more recent file appears to be a copyvio by a different user JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Per precedent from Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:Ron Mueck head.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:InSapphoWeTrust - Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts at Madame Tussauds London (8481389580).jpg. {{FoP-UK}} applies to images of wax figures in Madame Tussaud's London museum. If possible, these can be tagged with {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support These appear to be figures in Mme Tussaud's London museum. There is long precedent here for such works to be OK under UK FoP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Homewrecker at Madame Tussaud's Hong Kong - Flickr - skinnylawyer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per precedent at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-05#Files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Madame Tussauds Hong Kong. {{FoP-Hong Kong}} is applicable as Hong Konger FoP is a direct legacy of British FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support These appear to be figures in Mme Tussaud's Hong Kong museum. There is long precedent here for such works to be OK under UK FoP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Casalanguida.jpg

Buongiorno, mi sembra opportuno richiamare la vostra cortese attenzione sull'annullamento di quest'immagine. Detengo i diritti d'immagine sulle opere e sulle memorie di Maria Casalanguida: ho già inviato il documento in questione che è conservato su Commons. Chiedo di annullare il provvedimento sul file in oggetto perchè la fotografia può essere prodotta sulla pagina in costruzione di Maria Casalanguida su Wikipedia. Grazie per l'attenzione e rimango in attesa della vostra cortese comunicazione. Dott. Gianpiero Menniti--Gianpiero Menniti (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was taken from Facebook. If you are, as you claim, the actual photographer, then please upload the image as it came from the camera, without the Facebook EXIF. Sending a message using VRT is unlikely to be helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buongiorno Gianpiero Menniti, la procedura non è corretta. Il documento deve essere inviato dalla pittrice stessa (o inoltrato da un familiare) al servizio VRT, scrivendo a In seguito, tutte le opere che indicherà nella mail saranno autorizzate. Grazie Ruthven (msg) 13:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JustinGreywolf Buddy.png

Permission received from copyright holder and verified via VRT Ticket#2022022310011524. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented in the UnDR above, "Oppose This does not appear to be a selfie. If it is not a selfie, then in order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) User:Jgreywolf must send a free license together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving him the right to freely license it for any use by anybody anywhere." Does the message received at VRT satisfy one of (a) or (b)? Which one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Can you provide an answer to Jim's concerns? We don't need any details wrt to VRT confidentiality, but a quick info on either option a) or b) would be appreciated before we restore the file. De728631 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@De728631 The image has been restored temporarily. The VRTS ticket authorisation is not satisfying and probably the VRT agent will answer soon requesting a permission directly from the photographer. Ruthven (msg) 13:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I think in general, we should just automatically restore files upon receipt of VRT correspondence. This has several advantages: 1) non-admin VRT agents will not have to make another request here; 2) the file description can be tagged {{Permission received}} with the ticket number, so that future correspondence which references the same file but without the same ticket number can be connected back to the original chain of messages; 3) if the sender/copyright holder is not the uploader, then it is unclear how they could release the rights to a file that they cannot see, blindly trusting that the contents are as expected. -- King of ♥ 20:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I disagree. This is a case in point. We have a VRT message that is "not satisfying". I'm guessing it comes from the subject and offers no evidence that he actually has the right to freely license the image. I don't know what percentage of images for which we receive VRT messages are never restored because the sender does not have the rights and cannot arrange for a free license, but it's not negligible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: And what happens when the VRT message is "not satisfying" because it doesn't appear to come from the copyright holder? The sender will need to get the copyright holder to send a message. But can the copyright holder really consent to a release form when the referenced URL does not work? -- King of ♥ 21:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, there is a very clear argument in favor of automatically restoring images deleted as copyvio: they would not have been deleted so soon if they had been tagged by the uploader with {{Permission pending}}, and we don't want to punish people for procedural errors by refusing to display their images until VRT is fully confirmed. -- King of ♥ 21:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Adaquate permission has now been received via VRT and documented at the undeleted file. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022022410008116. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I hereby affirm that I represent Rick Caruso, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: File:Mc-RC.pdf and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Matthew Kelly Appointed Representative of Rick Caruso February 25, 2022

Hi Matthew, you need to write that to And to give them a proof why you are representative. The better way would be to ask the photographer to write to them, because he or she owns the copyright in first place. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose More to the point, this file cannot be restored. We do not keep PDFs of images on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]