Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

47 copyvios • 48 duplicates • 8 adverts • 17 selfies • 31 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Instructions for administrators

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.

I propose to:

• Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
• Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.

• First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
• Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
• There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.

To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!

In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).

While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM ^(t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.

I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:

• Ajdovscina
• Beltinci
• Benedikt
• Bistrica ob Sotli
• Bled
• Bloke
• Bohinj

@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.

As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.

As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.

And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM ^(t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.

Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).

I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored).jpg
• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored 2).jpg

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

But if they were produced for AP and not first published in Russia, that's irrelevant. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We need to know if it was published in Soviet Union (we know it was in USA). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Looney Tunes YouTube Copyright Claim.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Looney Tunes YouTube Copyright Claim.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I don't remember what was in this picture, but was there any copyvio? Because this was not one of the incriminated clips that were deleted altogether, and it could serve an educational purpose.

If it wasn't a copyvio, or if it's debatable per Commons:De minimis, maybe we should temporarily restore it for the aim of the debate. Wikisquack (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Not de mimimis, Daffy Duck and Speedy Gonzales are clearly recognizable from the thumbnail and both are copyrighted characters. Abzeronow (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In order to see this, you must go to the history of the redirect. As noted by Abzeronow, it is clearly a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Mary Erdoes Headshot - Undelete

I am disclosing a conflict of interest as the subject of this biography.

I’d like to request independent review of the lead image currently used in the article. The existing photo is both outdated and significantly lower quality compared to a freely licensed alternative available on Wikimedia Commons.

A newer, higher-resolution, professionally lit image with clearer encyclopedic value is available here: File:Mary_Erdoes_Headshot_2024.jpg

Per WP:BLP and WP:IMAGE, lead images should be neutral, recent, and of reasonable quality where available. This request is based on image quality, recency, and encyclopedic suitability — not personal preference.

I will not make direct edits due to COI and am requesting that an uninvolved editor evaluate whether the alternative image better meets Wikipedia’s image selection guidelines.

--0zziesolares (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Erdoes Headshot 2024.jpg, that image appears to be a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jim - This photo was commissioned by and all usage rights owned by Mary Erdoes. What would you need from me to address your concern?

Thanks,

Ozzie 0zziesolares (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

First, I note that you claimed that you were the actual photographer when you uploaded the image. Since that is clearly not true, that makes it difficult to believe anything you say. Also note that "all usage rights" does not typically include the right to freely license the image as required here. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:San Sebastian church.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:San Sebastian church.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: restoring the old (deleted) image file deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Sebastian church.jpg. The Flickr image has a copyright credit that states "(c) 1899 F. Tennyson Neelly". This is most likely {{PD-US-expired}} as it was registered before 1930. Some file move revision needed as the title is currently used by a different file. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Support F Tennyson Neely died in 1941, so the image has been PD in the Philippines since 1991. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the PH copyright term matter. The image was probably first published in the US, so US PD tag suits the image. {{PD-US-expired}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion

I am requesting the restoration of the following file:

Reason for restoration: This file is a properly sourced and relevant image of Mohamed Jamel Nefzi, a notable Tunisian filmmaker and producer. It is intended for encyclopedic use in Wikipedia articles and other Wikimedia projects. The image is taken with permission or by the uploader and is not a random personal photo. It provides important visual documentation for his biography and work.

This file meets the criteria for fair use and educational/museum-related purposes and is not uploaded for purely personal or promotional use. Its removal reduces the quality and completeness of related Wikipedia content.

I kindly request that the file be restored so it can be used appropriately in Wikipedia articles and other Wikimedia projects.

TunisFilmEditor (نقاش) 09:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TunisFilmEditor (talk • contribs) 09:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This probably concerns File:Director Mohamed Jamel Nefzi portrait 2025.jpg. Out of scope as personal image by a non contributor. Yann (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Your priority should be to submit your draft for publication, en:Draft:Mohamed Jamel Nefzi. Thuresson (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the scope question, the image appears on Facebook and IMDB so it is likely a copyright violation. "Fair use and educational/museum related purposes" are very much too narrow for Commons. Fair use is not possible here and images must be available for any use by anybody, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jeeva S Sk

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jeeva S Sk

I am requesting undeletion for these files by @Jeeva S Sk:

@Timtrent and Pi.1415926535: Normally your rationale about COM:WEBHOST and Commons not being a preprint server apply to copies of papers, but I have the user attempting to use a new developing Wikiversity preprint publishing service. Their text content and the illustrations they have become available through the Wikimedia ecosystem in a mix of Wikiversity and Wikimedia Commons publishing.

They will publish their paper at Wikiversity:WikiJournal Preprints/Dravidian Arc: Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins and seek preprint review from Wikimedians through the process described at Wikiversity:WikiJournal Preprints.

I have also discussed this at

• Commons_talk:Project_scope#WikiJournal_of_Humanities
• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_102#Urgent_Request_for_Review_and_Correction_on_a_negative_slur

Since that time, Jeeva S Sk has begun the Wikiversity publication submission process as seen in the above link I shared, where right now they have their abstract submitted.

Thanks for consideration and please ask questions if you have them. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I think it would be better for these images to be hosted locally on Wikiversity. We would generally not keep images from a preprint that was not otherwise published in a reputable journal (or by a notable author) unless the preprint or images themselves had been the subject of substantive discussion elsewhere. I appreciate that the uploader is following the process at Wikiversity, but that does not make images of speculative claims appropriate for Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry I think they are unsuitable for Commons. I am not sure why they need to be undeleted here. Do you intend that to be temporary so they may be migrated to Wikiversity? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535, @Timtrent, @Bluerasberry – Thank you for the feedback and re-considering. The images in question are not speculative uploads without provenance. They are part of my published article Dravidian Arc: Reframing Ancient India’s Civilisational Origins on Graham Hancock’s website (https://grahamhancock.com/ssj1/). Graham Hancock is a widely recognized author, with substantial readership and even a Netflix series on ancient civilizations, and he has agreed to host my paper on his site.

• Licensing: Released under CC BY‑SA 4.0, meeting Commons’ free license requirements.
• Source and provenance: Directly tied to a published article, with clear attribution.
• Educational use: Intended to illustrate archaeological and historical arguments, not promotional material.
• Notable author/platform: Hancock’s site is considered notable in terms of readership and visibility, giving the publication public notability beyond a private blog or unpublished draft.

I understand Commons’ caution about original research and am willing to host the images on Wikiversity for preprint purposes if that is the only option. However, given the licensing, provenance, and the fact that they are already published on a notable platform by a widely recognized author, I believe they also qualify for Commons under its stated criteria. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Graham Hancock is known for peddling widely-debunked psuedoarcheology. We certainly would not host any of his works on Commons with his claims repeated at face value. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Every time I'm reminded of Wikiversity's existence, it's because someone is uploading AI slop here for use on that project. Now it's not AI slop, it's pseudoscience slop. I have to believe that there is actual, quality content somewhere on that project, but gosh, I've come to associate it (and Wikibooks) with a complete lack of quality control. That said, we are the shared file repository for the WMF's projects, whether they have quality control or not. If we're going to reject covering certain content because it goes contra to our project's aims (and right now, I would say that the two aims are in direct conflict when it comes to Wikiversity), it needs to be a broader discussion, argued somewhere more suited to such a discussion than an undeletion request. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  @Pi.1415926535, @The Squirrel Conspiracy — With respect, my understanding is that Wikimedia Commons’ criteria are intended to avoid editorial judgments about the truth or falsity of published interpretations, since contributors here are not expected to act as subject-matter adjudicators. Commons’ role is to assess whether media is freely licensed, properly attributed, verifiable, and educationally relevant, not to resolve scholarly disputes. I would appreciate it if this aspect of Commons’ criteria could be confirmed with senior management or senior editors.

  I cannot speak for all of Graham Hancock’s work, but I can point to verifiable, science-based facts. For example, Hancock drew attention to the Khambhat (Cambay) submergence, where NIOT sonar surveys conducted in 2000 documented extensive underwater features and recovered artefacts, including organic materials that yielded radiocarbon dates approaching 9,500 years BP. Interpretations of these findings remain debated, largely because the material was not recovered from stratified underwater excavation contexts and has not been formally integrated into ASI synthesis frameworks. Nonetheless, the existence of the surveys, artefacts, and dates themselves is well documented and not disputed.

  By comparison, Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia—another site Hancock helped bring to wider public attention—is now widely accepted and securely dated to approximately 9500 BCE, predating the earliest urban centres of Mesopotamia by several millennia. This illustrates that early public discussion of unconventional or initially contested archaeological findings does not, in itself, render such material non-educational or unsuitable for Commons, provided the sourcing is clear.

  More importantly, Commons’ evaluation hinges on whether uploaded media is free, verifiable, and of educational value. The images I uploaded:

  • Are released under CC BY-SA 4.0, satisfying Commons’ free-license requirements;
  • Are directly tied to a published article on Graham Hancock’s website, with clear attribution;
  • Are intended to illustrate archaeological and historical arguments, not to function as advertising or promotional content.

  Whether particular interpretations remain debated within archaeology should not, in my understanding, determine Commons eligibility, so long as the material is accurately described, properly sourced, and clearly contextualised. Jeeva S Sk (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:PatricTariqMellet.png

This is my own creation taken with my camera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithursan1 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)