On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.
This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.
Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.
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.
if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
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.
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.
Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.
In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.
The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."
When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.
When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").
Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.
I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).
As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)
Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there REAL💬⬆15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then REAL💬⬆22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the public domain if it was published before 1995 (1375 SH). I was also unable to find any information about the logo. Hanooz20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.
Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweigτ10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Evidence needed: eg. who is the photographer and when died, or where it was published anonymously more than 70 years ago. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Assume that the title is in Spanish, don't you think that may also came from one of the several Latin America countries, and in such cases, why both aforementioned tags of you still apply? Let's obey COM:PCP, please and thanks. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) This was taken either around 1919 when she worked with Beecham Opera at the age of 21 in UK , or around 1923 when she joined the Ballets Russes at the age of 25 in France. I don't see any reason to assume that was not published at the time. Yann (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment per COM:PCP, in addition to Ankry's concerns, where this photo is captured is still a block for a legal resumption, by providing a Spanish title, one could also assume that that came from Mexico and may protect for 100 years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be first published in Mexico? So you have any evidence that she worked in Mexico around 1920? Deleting this is an abuse of COM:PCP, which requires significant doubt. Yann (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was.
”
Is this comment meaning that you can't see any authorships about this file, and you're really sure this will retain for the foreseeable future? I even doubt if PD-EU-no author disclosure may still work after Brexit. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is OK. You can add that Despite research, no author was found for this picture. PD-EU-no author disclosure is for the case when it was first published in France or in Ireland. Yann (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SupportUser:Liuxinyu970226, I suggest that before you take a position on images here, you at least read a little about the subject. You say, "Assume that the title is in Spanish". The subject was born in Ireland as Edris Stannus and assumed the name Ninette de Valois, so the name gives no reason at all to suggest that the image might be from Latin America. We know that she worked in the UK, France, and Turkey, but there is nothing in Ninette de Valois to suggest she ever crossed the Atlantic. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Aankomst" is not a name but the Dutch word for "arrival". The image caption just says "Arrival of the choreographer". "Aankomst" is certainly not the author. Nakonana (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suddenly, this deleted file is same as en:File:Ninette de Valois.jpg, but the "Circa. early 1920s" would still give me two panoramas: if that's 1920-1925, okay let's restore here and delete the enwiki replica, but if 1926-1929, then still a four-alphabet headache point: URAA. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming it is the same image as the one still available on en.wikipedia, I spent time this morning trying to find clues about the origin of this image, without success. At best, I could find that it is not in places where it might have been expected to be. It is not in the 1957 autobiography of Ninette De Valois [4], it is not in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, it is not in the collection of the V&A Museum, it does not seem to be in collections of photographs by Gordon Anthony (although that might still be a possibility), it is apparently not by Bassano Ltd nor by Alexander Stewart (who took other photos of her). A ballet commentator dates it from as early as The Dying Swan performance in the 1910s, but it could also be ten years later. Other biographies of her by other authors may have more information, or not, if someone can find them. I agree with Yann that the PCP does not mean to imagine the worst implausible scenario in the world. The country of origin requirement is a self-inflicted burden by Commons. When there is no absolute certainty about the country of first publication, it seems reasonable to assume the most likely, in this case the United Kingdom. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. A deletion request was filed citing "out of scope" and a possible copyright violation.
2. I responded by clarifying that the videos had been published on the official YouTube channel of the game developer, and I added the appropriate source template.
3. The nominator subsequently withdrew the copyright concern, acknowledging the videos' official origin.
4. No further arguments were presented to support the "out of scope" claim. As such, I considered the matter resolved and did not continue the discussion.
5. However, approximately four months later, the files were deleted by User:Stifle as a copyright violation—despite the fact that the copyright issue had already been retracted.
I understand that the deletion may have been an attempt to close a long-standing unresolved request.
However, given that the only remaining concern—"out of scope"—was never substantiated, I believe a more careful review of the discussion would have been appropriate.
Support--Trade (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
It is important that administrative actions, particularly deletions, are based on a full understanding of the conversation and context in order to ensure fair outcomes.[reply]
Reason for undeletion
The only remaining issue was "out of scope". However, these videos are official promotional trailers released by the game developer. They are comparable to other trailers hosted on Commons (e.g., for titles such as Dark Souls). The videos illustrate gameplay and have educational and documentary value. Therefore, they fall within Commons' scope and should be restored.
Probably ok and under scope, but I'd Oppose given my thoughts that these are unlikely own work, and will nonetheless end up getting deleted as copyright violations. signed, Aafi (talk)14:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader has spent the weekend trying to find somebody to write a Wikipedia article about him, is there such an article now? Thuresson (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the uploader is the subject, copyright is the main issue for these images. One of them is a selfie, the other is not: their authors cannot be the same person Ankry (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Use is not allowed on Commons, see COM:L. If Hannity doesn't freely license his videos, then we cannot host them as we respect Hannity's copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Que está pasando
Solicito la restauración del archivo "Axtor ejecutando un saludo interplanetar.jpg", eliminado bajo el criterio CSD F10. Soy el autor de la imagen y también la persona retratada. Puedo confirmar que tengo todos los derechos sobre la fotografía y deseo publicarla bajo licencia CC BY-SA 4.0.
Usuario: Axtor
Axtorino (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:CSOP Logo.png
谢谢审核员审核，想请问为什么该logo图片会被快速删除，这张logo图片来自公开来源，并不违反任何方面的著作权及其他权利。我能保留这张图片并用在现存的维基百科词条中吗？感谢回复！
Thank you for reviewing. I would like to ask why the logo image was quickly deleted. This logo image comes from a public source and does not violate any copyright or other rights. Can I keep this image and use it in an existing Wikipedia article? Thank you for your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie JL (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have permission from the owner to ulpoad the file, as I have permission to upload his work for articlesd reletad to FC Fratria. If needed, he will send you once again an email.
And also:
Oppose@Chris Calvin: Please first ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. The files will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated by a volunteer. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I need to ask myself to send and email about the files? I'll send an email, then and will ask the owner of the first file to write (again). Chris Calvin (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luca Vitale (Grosseto, 3 dicembre 1969) è un politico, imprenditore immobiliare e velista italiano. È consigliere comunale del Comune di Grosseto e figura di riferimento del partito Fratelli d’Italia a livello comunale e provinciale.
Biografia
Diplomato Agrotecnico, ha ricevuto una laurea honoris causa in Ingegneria dalla Euro University. Attivo dal 1994 nel settore immobiliare, è titolare dei brand Property In The World, Tosco Intermedia Immobiliare e Hotels In The World. Ha ricoperto per 30 anni ruoli dirigenziali nella Federazione Italiana Agenti Immobiliari.
Carriera politica
Nel 2016 e 2021 è candidato al Consiglio Comunale di Grosseto per Fratelli d’Italia. Dal 2017 è Presidente del CdA del COSTRAVI, nominato dal sindaco Antonfrancesco Vivarelli Colonna. Dal 2022 è consigliere comunale e dal 2025 vicepresidente della Seconda Commissione. Coordina il circolo “Mirco Butelli” e il Dipartimento Provinciale Imprese e Mondi Produttivi.
Attività associative e sportive
È membro del Panathlon Club di Grosseto e velista professionista. Ha conquistato il titolo di vicecampione del mondo ORC a Barcellona.
Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Done: per discussion, British photograph with an unknown author. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Not done: except one, which is a selfie. For the rest, permission from the photographer is needed. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_DJ-II-m-A-08140.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
