Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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
8 copyvios • 19 duplicates • 3 adverts • 12 selfies • 17 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]

 Support {{RaftFilms Permission}} appears to be valid and is present on the first file, so this deletion seems to be a mistake. As far as I can see, there is no reason to believe that there is a problem with the other two. Note that the copyright watermark in File:Taghi Rahmani.jpg must remain -- from the text of the CC-BY license:

Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
....
ii. a copyright notice;
....

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 27 February 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]

Bonn Zoological Bulletin

For example:

The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License per https://zoologicalbulletin.de/content-policy. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:1350balkans.png

Map was accidently misunderstood as EU5 map while it wasn't.

Person that deleted the map apologised. Full discussion here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneZeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polserb (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there the youtube video and the reddit post if different need to be under a free license, and I explained how to do that. However given that the comments there unanimously point out its inaccuracies, I'm undecided - it's very hard to map everything accurately, as even if modifications were made there might be further issues (and I can't view that deleted file, but the reddit post turned up as an exact match). HurricaneZetaC 23:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to point that reddit post is about year 1337, while map presented year 1350 with Serbian Empire at it's peak and several border differences so some of mistakes mentioned are off. I can eventually change map style and fix incorrect border and then upload it as new file. I am just unsure is that allowed Polserb (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Minorax

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself several admins had responded and nobody was concerned about this. Greg said I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. there.

He could have used a tripod, which wouldn't be too far-fetched if you're going places specifically to take photos with celebrities. Even if someone else triggered the shutter, it's likely a case of m:Wikilegal/Authorship and Copyright Ownership#The Example of the Third Party Photographer (in a nutshell: human tripods don't get copyright).

 Oppose But most of the time the person who pushes the button gets the copyright, see m:Talk:Wikilegal/Authorship_and_Copyright_Ownership#Disagreement. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Greg2600. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Declination (Cragg, Borås)

Deletion request
These files were deleted due to the fact that "Sweden lacks Freedom of Panorama for sculptures" and that the Swedish FoP regulations aren't clear enough for them to be uploaded to Commons. COM:FOP Sweden states that, yes, it is unsure if public art is under copyright or not, but also that it is "strongly recommended not to submit any deletion requests just based on simple reasons like 'no FOP for artworks in Sweden'". If we are to follow COM:PCP in this case, we should delete every photo of public art that's been taken in Sweden (unless the author is dead + 70 years bla bla bla). I think we need to take a very clear stance on this, and right now (at least from what I've gathered), the consensus is to keep files like this.

// Kakan spelar (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As a general rule, on this page we do not act opposite to our internal guidance. I agree that COM:FOP Sweden needs work, but the place to do that is there and not here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but we also have guidance for keeping files like this. The official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation is:

[...] the Wikimedia Foundation’s position is that, at this time, the Foundation is not under any obligation to remove any images from Wikimedia Commons [...]

and

[...] it’s our opinion that it would be good to leave most of the Swedish images on Commons for now, since the copyright status, permissions, or any applicable legal exceptions for any specific piece of artwork have not been determined yet.

— Thoughts from WMF Legal about the BUS case in Sweden, 9 August 2017.
Personally, I think this is pretty clear that we should keep these photos even if, in this case, it isn't 100% clear. That's at least what the Foundation wants. // Kakan spelar (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What WMF wants is that Commons should decide. And in 2017, 9 years ago, they hoped the law would change to the better. It hasn't, it has rather hardened. LittleGun (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose What we do know is that Commons' pictures of public art in Sweden cannot be used as they were used by the Wikimedia Sweden curated site [3]. That is displaying Commons pictures of public art on a website, without paying a license fee to BUS (Visual Copyright Society in Sweden). As www.offentligkonst.se was ruled to pay, and accepted with both Wikimedia Sweden and WMF supporting the defense, the pictures cannot be considered free according to Commons' policy.--LittleGun (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Afghanistan (variant used in protests).svg and File:Flag of Afghanistan (Another Variant used in protests).svg

  1. Did the files directly state any author that actually owns the design?
  2. The IP user in particular also tried to delete File:Flag of Afghanistan (1978–1980).svg, File:Flag of Afghanistan (1974–1978).svg, and File:Flag of Afghanistan (1987–1992).svg due to it being under 50 years for {{PD-Afghanistan}}. By that logic, won't File:Flag of Afghanistan (2004-2013).svg and File:Flag of Afghanistan (2013-2021).svg be deleted as well? Or are defunct countries not included.

If I am unable to get the file undeleted, I hope that at least I could get it emailed to to my email address as I swear I read somewhere that it was an option until it got deleted?

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/74.98.226.71 as my source, sorry for not linking it before :( GuesanLoyalist (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hafun.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of this file. Source: British Institute in Eastern Africa Digital Archives: Somalia, Archaeology Data Service. Object ID: 2606217. https://doi.org/10.5284/1117728 ( link:https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/collections/view/object.cfm?object_id=2606217) Author: British Institute in Eastern Africa (1976) License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Shahanshax (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nominator. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Shahanshax: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinn Sisamouth.jpg

So, a discovery I made on COM:Village Pump/Copyright#Are the CC licenses of these Youtube videos valid? (Sinn Sisamouth) is that the official verified account of Sinn Sisamouth on Youtube has released several videos under CC licenses, here is all from around the time of the file's deletion to the present:

You may notice 2 things, 1 is that the photo of Sisamouth is in these videos, and 2 being that not all recent videos were placed with CC licenses.

This leads me to the conclusion that these licenses were placed on purpose, and that it's plausible that the original uploader was telling the truth when they said they got permission from the Sinn Sisamouth Association, an NGO, to upload the original file. We were just unable to verify that being the case because it didn't go through VRT (and, in fact, trying to contact the SSA or now the CVMA has been fruitless).

If the preceding isn't enough to establish that the copyright holders intended to place this version of Sisamouth's portrait under a CC license, then the other rationale would be that the file is a free depiction of a non-free work and would still qualify for undeletion.

Here is the original DR for reference. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We don't guess at the intentions of people who hold files. All we know is that the Association has licensed a few files.

Also, the Association may have a license to use the image, but the Association is very unlikely to actually have the right to freely license the image as required here -- that right almost always remains with the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward The Association, are in fact the copyright holders for at least several media in regards to the artists they archive, including Sinn Sisamouth. In fact, it took petitioning for the copyright of some songs to be awarded to Sisamouth's family. In regards to the photo, there was no copyright law at the time of creation, which is why we see this photo used on album covers and other marketing material. Post Khmer-Rouge, the photographer like many Cambodians are likely dead, and the copyright of the photo (once that became a thing), along with the songs, passed to the SSA (you can find copyright notices for an album cover among this abandoned blog they maintained), which would later merge into the CVMA. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright to the photo would not have passed to anyone except the photographer's statutory heir(s) unless the photographer left a will. If there was a will, then the heir to the copyright would have been named in it. I see no reason why we should assume that this unknown photographer left a will and named the Association. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward That is factually incorrect. Article 19 of Cambodia's law on copyright and related rights includes:
In case of having no heir, this right will be subjected to the administration and governance of the state represented by the Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts.
Given the nature of when and how this particular file was made, it would be very strange for copyright law to work with statutory heirs and wills when the vast majority of copyright holders of fine arts were deliberately killed and their heirs either also killed or displaced.

Like mentioned above, it took petitioning for the heirs of Sisamouth to receive the right of copyright. In a similar vein, the Cambodian Music Vintage Association (CMVA) has clearly received the copyright of plenty of Sisamouth's media from the MCFA, including album covers as seen from the blog of their predecessor, the SSA. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That may all be true, but it remains to be proven that (a) the Association has actually freely licensed this image and (b) that the Association actually has the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward In the aforementioned copyright page for the CMVA, the exact wording used in the headers of the release documents from the MCFA are "...សិទ្ធិគ្រប់គ្រងមរតកសាសន៍បទចម្រៀង..." and "...សិទ្ធិគ្រប់គ្រងមរតកសាសន៍របស់កាកាងចម្រៀង..." which roughly translates to "the right to manage the legacy/heritage of songs", which does imply that the copyright of album covers were also transferred over. Again, their predecessor, the SSA, have claimed copyright via copyright notice over visual material, and the original uploader to Commons claimed permission was granted by the SSA despite lack of contact with VRT.

In regards to (a), CC licenses applied to Youtube videos apply to the whole video, both audio and visual for the content that is either created or granted, i.e. not a reaction or compilation of someone else's work. By applying the license, the specific use case of the photo in question is applied. If you are to not believe the original uploader to Commons, then this would fall under Category:Free depictions of non-free works.

Now there's something that made my heart sank when I saw. Earlier today, @Tchaikovsky1 uploaded a file with the EXACT same name as the one that is of topic as this undeletion request. It was SD by @Yann a few hours later. But this leaves me with the concern of if the original, pre-Tchaikovsky1 upload be undeleted in the event that I am able to convince y'all of the copyright status? I was the original one behind the DR, I remember the file being higher resolution than most on the internet, at least at the time. TansoShoshen (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Tchaikovsky1 upload is a slightly better version of the same photograph, so it would probably be the one to be kept. However, again, we have a photograph by an unknown author. The copyright may or may not have passed to his heirs and may or may not have passed to the Cambodian government and thence possibly to the Association. The Association may or may not have freely licensed it. Unless someone can dig out the paper trail -- any copyright transfer requires a written document -- for the four transfers here, I don't see any way we can say that this is free beyond a significant doubt as required by PCP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vincent Borgers.jpg

The file was deleted as a copyright violation because the same photo appears on an external website.

However, I confirm that I am the person in the photograph and also the copyright holder of the image. The photo was provided by me for use on that website and I have the rights to release it under a free license.

I am willing to release the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license so it can be used on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia.

If required I can also send confirmation of permission.

Requesting undeletion so the file can be properly licensed.

Vincentborgers2 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose — @Vincentborgers2 This is a picture of you, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate to holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via COM:VRT. Only the copyright owner may release the file. you need to prove that you own that copyright. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose: Timtrent is correct. In addition, @Vincentborgers2, it doesn't reflect well on you that you created the Wikidata item Q138569200, suspiciously titled "Vincent Borgers". That degree of flagrance may put you not just in F1 (copyrighted file) territory, but also in G10 (advertisement) territory.
I also checked your talk page and saw that the file was sourced from https://enschede.allekandidaten.nl/kandidaten/vincent-borgers/, which, upon a translation by Google, appears to be a Dutch site that centralises information about candidates in local elections. The site's purpose does check out with the Wikidata description of "Dutch entrepreneur, event organizer and municipal council candidate in Enschede". Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Original Research By Young Twinkle Students (ORBYTS) Ephemeris Refinement of Transiting Exoplanets.pdf

IIRC, (I could be wrong, because I uploaded it ages ago) this was taken from this link, and the DR was COM:SCOPE with the rationale "just raw text". But looking at the research paper, clearly it isn't just raw text. Acagastya (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In the UK, licensing of joint works such as this requires the written consent of all parties. Therefore all 63 writers must communicate with VRT or someone must convince the VRT volunteer that all 63 have given consent to a free license.

As for the scope question, I think it is probably out of scope but I take no formal position on it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: so just to clarify, is it the case that Wikimedia Commons holds the position, any research paper licensed under CC BY/SA on arxiv is not good enough to actually be under CC BY license to be mirrored on commons, if it is from the UK, and we haven't yet received a written ACK from all the authors?
Acagastya (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, while I think that this student paper is probably out of scope, I take no position on it and leave the scope question to our colleagues. On the copyright question, however, please remember that we pay much more careful attention to copyright than most other Web sites and we will need to have proof that all 63 named authors have consented to the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, re your point, I am aware "we pay much more careful attention to copyright than most other Web sites". I am asking this because there are a lot of papers uploaded from arXiv to commons are were under the CC BY/SA license. Could you please tell me about what I had asked (is it the case that Wikimedia Commons holds the position, any research paper licensed under CC BY/SA on arxiv is not good enough to actually be under CC BY license to be mirrored on commons, if it is from the UK, and we haven't yet received a written ACK from all the authors?) so that I can write to the researchers of the other papers to reach out to VRT as well or nom for del. Acagastya (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought your concern was the scope. I think that for a paper with more than one creator, we will want to see evidence that all of the creators have agreed to freely license it. Note that while we Assume Good Faith when we see {{Own}}, we do not have a similar rule for works with multiple joint authors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: I think this would be OK on Commons if it were under a free license. But I don't see one either here or here or here. However there is a free license here. Yann (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yann the version you linked to with the free license appears to be a 2 page summary version and isn't the full paper. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I mean some documents released by this group have been under a free license. Sorry if I was not clear. Yann (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anubhav Singh Bassi in Surat for Bas Kar Bassi.jpg

Not sure why this was deleted. I took the photo and should there be any missing perms, I can fix that, it was meant to be under CC0 just like the cropped version File:Anubhav Singh Bassi in Surat for Bas Kar Bassi (cropped).jpg.

✓ Done: OK, fine. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dosya:Goksu Basaran otoportre.jpg

The photograph "Goksu Basaran otoportre.jpg" is an original self-portrait of Göksu Başaran and the copyright belongs to Göksu Başaran.

The image was uploaded under the free license CC BY-SA 4.0 and there is no copyright violation.

I kindly request that the file be restored.

--GoksuEditor (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose
After seeing Special:Contribs/GoksuEditor, I was curious as to how OP had only one edit on Commons and trawled through Special:CentralAuth/GoksuEditor
A bit of cross-wiki checking later, I hit pay dirt: this diff on Bulgarian Wikipedia (only stewards and Bulgarian Wikipedia administrators may view it after the page's impending speedy deletion), where File:Goksu Basaran self-portrait.jpg was said by the CommonsDelinker bot to have been speedily deleted as an F3 and F10 violation
Upon an inspection of the Special:Log for that file, I saw that it had been uploaded by the account 1goksubasaran (talk · contribs)
I'm certain that GoksuEditor is a sock of whoever owns 1goksubasaran and that both of them accounts need more than a decline at Undeletion Central Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 06:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your comment.
I would like to clarify that the file was originally uploaded from the account 1goksubasaran, which I had used previously. Later I started using the account GoksuEditor for my edits on Wikimedia projects.
The photograph is my own original self-portrait and was uploaded in good faith under a free license. There was no intention to misuse multiple accounts.
If any clarification is needed, I will gladly cooperate.
Thank you. GoksuEditor (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The privelege of uploading personal images is reserved for active contributors. The two accounts for this editor have only a handful of edits. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Socrates_looks_a_itself_as_a_child.png

I request undeletion of this file. The file had previously been kept in a deletion discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Socrates_looks_a_itself_as_a_child.png The circumstances surrounding the file have not changed in any notable way since that discussion. In fact, the technical concern that was mentioned earlier (sloppiness) was improved by a new AI run. The file is also marked as COM:INUSE and is currently used on a page on Wikibooks. Because of the deletion, that page is now negatively affected. Since the file was previously kept and there do not appear to be new arguments or changed circumstances, I kindly request that the file be restored. BeeBringer (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikibooks page is that file on? Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[9] BeeBringer (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now
Thanks
Another word: it's best that you go and see Commons:AI images of identifiable people... Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 09:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We do not keep art from people who are not notable artists. That is particularly true of AI art and of people who have a limited number of contributions here (383). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images by Hana Hamplová

Please undelete the following files per a license delivered to VRTS as ticket:2026012210202627:


Please ping me (and Gampe) once the file is undeleted, so we can tag them accordingly.

For transparency: This is repeating an earlier deletion request by Gampe (who is a VRT agent as well; archive). That request was declined by Jameslwoodward as "pending undeletion request by a VRT member" (possibly because it wasn't clear the request was coming from VRT).

Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec and Gampe: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec and Gampe: File:Hana Hamplová 1982 Bez názvu (5) analog 60x50cm.jpg was deleted again. Yann (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruno-Grassi-Apresentação-Ribeirense.jpg

A Imagem é de domínio público e é do Brasil,no qual as regras são diferentes da do seu país — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroburro (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please remember that Commons editors are from all over the world and are very much accustomed to dealing with the different laws of the various countries. It appears that we understand Brazilian copyright law better than you as the use of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} on this recent creation is absurd.

This image was lifted from Facebook and also appeared on Twitter, in both cases without a free license. I see not reason why it might be PD in Brazil or elsewhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Blockhaj

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Listed files were deleted due to incorrect self-licensing, despite being in public domain. This mass deletion (see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Blockhaj) was 7 years ago. I (the uploader) was at the time young, inexperienced, depressed, among more, and thus never got around to fixing their licenses, and thus they where deleted. Today, this is an easy fix. Blockhaj (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spamton Superbad.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: : It was originally deleted for being out of scope, but I would like this undeleted for use as a personal image on my userpage, which is allowed. ANOTHERWlKlPEDlAN wɑit thɑt’s ɑ typo 08:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose personal photos are in general selfies, or similar, to illustrate a user page. This request seems like an attempt to circumvent a DR that the uploader disagree. Günther Frager (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:ЛяписТрубецкой2026.jpg

Please check: that no permission tag has probably been ungrounded. User:DedaSasha is a well-known photographer (Creator:Alexander Khanin), and until now he's only uploaded his own works with his username present in EXIF. --Komarof (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toploizolacia EOOD logo.svg

Please restore my logo file, I have been using it for over 20 years. I don't know why it was marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasi2222 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It was deleted as an advertisement. We do not keep personal files for people with 31 edits on global Wiki projects. The privilege of having a few personal files is reserved for active contributors. Also note that for logos, if it were not out of scope policy would require that the copyright holder send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chad-elliott-7.jpg

[[File:Chad-elliott-7.jpg|thumb|Chad Allen Elliott]]

Hello!

I already had the photographer jump through the necessary hoops for this. It was Ticket#2026012210202029 back on January 26th.

This shouldn't have been an issue, and I don't know why it became one.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanevil (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted by VRT volunteeer with the following reason: "No ticket permission since 22 January 2026". Thuresson (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do I get a ticket permission? Like I said, they signed everything they needed to. They did everything they had to. What was left undone? Meanevil (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know the photographer personally, I kept in touch with them through the whole process, if there is something they missed I can let them know to fix it. Meanevil (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that only someone who is a VRT volunteer will be able to put it back? Meanevil (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard and ask them about Ticket#2026012210202029. If the ticket is valid but wasn't checked, it will be undeleted. If the ticket is invalid, they will tell you what to do. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! ~2026-14975-06 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Stop Killing Games

Originally removed due to being empty and only having files which were violations. The category now has two files that directly relate to Stop Killing Games, with more to come (I have yet to upload the remaining Audiovisual Service EU images). In addition, I am planning to upload a data graph of the EU initiative's signature count and contact SKG directly for a VRT permission to use certain images. The category has use and needs to be undeleted. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Not empty any more. --Yann (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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