Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
106 copyvios • 11 duplicates • 5 adverts • 56 selfies • 14 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]

File:Vinicius_Sgarbe_outside_a_cafe_in_Florence,_Italy_(25_November_2025).jpg

Requesting undeletion of this file.

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

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

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

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

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

I fully understand the concerns that may arise in situations like this, and I appreciate the attention given to compliance with Commons and Wikipedia policies.
It is clear that every new article must begin somewhere. The development of a biography on Wikipedia is often incremental: references are established first, structure is improved over time, and additional contributors may join as the subject gains broader attention. While the journalist in question does not yet have multiple editors contributing to the page, the article is supported by independent, reliable sources. The assessment of notability rests on the existence and quality of such sources, not on the current number of contributors.
Regarding the image, I respectfully submit that it aligns with Wikimedia Commons requirements:
  • The photograph is my own work.
  • It was uploaded under a free license compatible with Commons.
  • It was taken in a public setting.
  • It serves a clear encyclopedic purpose as the lead image of a biographical article.
Under Wikipedia’s standards for biographies, a freely licensed portrait has clear educational value. It enables readers to identify the subject and supports the encyclopedic function of the entry. The image is not promotional in nature and is not being used for decorative purposes; it is intended solely to illustrate the person discussed in the article.
If any metadata, categorization, or documentation needs refinement to better comply with Commons policies, I am fully willing to correct it promptly and to follow any guidance provided. My intention is to contribute in accordance with the rules and to learn from the process where improvements are necessary.
Thank you for considering the request within the framework of Wikimedia’s policies and standards. Aroldo Henrique Pegoraro de Almeida (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support While the article in question is nominated for deletion due to its quality, a Wikidata item for Vinícius Sgarbe may be created and the image used in the item. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 18:49, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by DmitryYakunin

DmitryYakunin (talk · contributions · Statistics)

As far as I can see, all their photos were taken with a single Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera, have the author's name in the metadata: Dmitry Yakunin, and they are all of good quality. Is there really something wrong with these three? Could they have been deleted due to lack of description or an oversight? I apologize in advance if my guess is wrong. --Quick1984 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The first image has "Photo from family's library" in the file description. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license the image as required here. That right almost always remains with the actual photographer. This image can be restored if the actual photographer or their heir sends a free license using VRT.

I note that DmitryYakunin claimed to be the actual photographer, using the {{Own}} tag. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and, if repeated, will lead to being blocked from editing here.

 Neutral The second and third images appear to be OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did I understand you correctly that the second and third files were deleted on no grounds and should be restored? Otherwise, I'm afraid no one will read your reply beyond the word "Oppose". Quick1984 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He opposes undeleting the first image, but claims that the others are unlikely to be a violation. Not a guaranteed undeletion, but a likely one. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 12:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dabmasterars. I oppose restoring the first image for the reason given above. The other two seem to be OK, but I take no position on their restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gottfrid Svartholm - TPB.png

While the film is copyrighted, as outlined in the deletion discussion, the authors allow unlimited redistribution, commercial use and modification. All the other extracted stills from the movie in Category:Steal This Film use the template {{Copyrighted free use}}, so this file should be undeleted and relicensed the same way. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 11:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The web site says the film is copyrighted. Please provide a specific citation for the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fabián Alarcón 1 (cropped).jpg

This is a crop from a larger image freely licensed by the Congress of Ecuador, showing an official portrait in the background. The government of Ecuador also owns the rights to the portrait, meaning the license is valid for all derivative works, including this crop. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 12:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You assert that "The government of Ecuador also owns the rights to the portrait". How do you know that? As you certainly know, the right to freely license a work almost always remains with the creator; owning a portrait rarely gives the owner the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arcan-Isenkul.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It created by Arcan Isenkul Aaisenkul (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting the restoration of this file as it was uploaded with the full consent of the copyright holder, Arcan Isenkul. The photograph is a professional portrait for which the subject (Arcan Isenkul) holds the full copyrights and intends to release it under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license for use in his Wikipedia biography. We are prepared to complete the formal VRT (Volunteer Response Team) verification process. Please restore the file temporarily so we can initiate the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Aaisenkul (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The file was not deleted due to copyright issues but due to F10. This request should explain why it does have an educational value and if undeletion is appropriate submit the VRT verification as the photo claims to be taken by a professional photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 11:27, 2 March 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]

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

File:Cartograma 23 - Mapa da Distribuição da língua Kaiowá.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Razão: Essa foi minha primeira vez fazendo o upload de uma imagem no Commons, eu não sabia qual era o direito de copyright correto e por isso não coloquei, mas como sendo um mapa do IBGE, o instituto autoriza o uso para fins educacionais. No caso, eu deveria ter colocado "Licença de uso do IBGE – uso não comercial com citação obrigatória da fonte." e a fonte: IBGE, 2022, Distribuição espacial das pessoas indígenas que falam ou utilizam a língua Guarani Kaiowá. Por isso, peço que seja restaurada a página para que eu coloque a devida referência, e também, peço desculpas pelo erro e entendo que todas as imagens devem ser devidamente referncias, protegendo os seus criadores e seus trabalhos. GuilhermeRodrigues273 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source site is licensed CC-BY-ND 3.0. All Commons files must be free for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use and derivatives, so ND is not allowed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now I understand what the problem was. You can delete the page restore request, sorry for the mistake. ~2026-13804-61 (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally sent it without being logged in. GuilhermeRodrigues273 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: withdrawn by requester. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 3 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).

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

Files deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: was kept by Abzeronow in Commons:Deletion requests/Files on AI art caricatures and public characters in AI art but then deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI artwork of historical figures by Netha Hussain . COM:AIP can't overrule COM:INUSE. COM:AIP is a guideline, COM:INUSE is policy. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One note- COM:IDENT is also a guideline and that is noted within COM:INUSE as one of the exceptions. I think the problem here is that TSC and I only saw half of the discussions of these files. I don't particularly see a need for an AI image of Stephen Hawking when we have quite a few freely licensed images of him, but we shouldn't also be telling a number of projects that we think hosting such a thing is unacceptable. Some projects do not locally host files, and so Commons is their only platform for images so this should be another consideration when weighing whether to delete an INUSE file. As far as Abraham Lincoln and Aristotle go, maybe we should make it more clear in the file name that these are not accurate depictions of them at all, but AI-generated images. Abzeronow (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose AIIP was explicitly intended to overrule INUSE, as DIGNITY overrules INUSE and DIGNITY is the underpinning of AIIP. As far as I am concerned, the people that voted on the proposal were aware of this, judging by the discussions that happened. If AIIP needs to be upgraded to a policy to have the appropriate teeth, I am happy to put that forward. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AIP is not a well-written guideline. Don't get me wrong, generative AI is junk food at best. But generative AI changed nothing substantial except for one thing: price. It made junk food insanely cheap, but nothing really changed. Policy shouldn't target AI specifically. It also shouldn't target people specifically. Comments on User:Alexis Jazz/Proposal incubator#Declare deceptive media to be out of scope, even if INUSE are welcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on whether the guideline is well written or not is irrelevant. It passed overwhelmingly. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mateus Costato files uploaded by Montenegro Marcella

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2025111410000192). -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This editor is not a VRT member. 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, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 14 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanata SC logo.png

--Mostafaelbahrawe (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)ياريت ترجعو الصورة لأن مش عليها حقوق نشر ومتاحة للجميع[reply]

 Oppose Unless it is very old, virtually everything you see on the web, including this logo, has a copyright. There is no reason to believe this is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disc_Realms_Studios-2026.png

This is a refined logo created for Disc Realms Studios/Network due to legal issues that might arise from an old logo that used an official Minecraft Texture from the Noteblock. The new texture features a hand-drawn custom noteblock texture, which allows Disc Realms to sell physical products that feature its logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupancham (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The file was not deleted when you filed this request, but after reviewing the rejected Wikipedia draft, I deleted it and your other upload under our criteria for speedy deletion. F10 and G10 both apply. Needless to say, I would  Oppose undeletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teeman elokuvafestivaalin juliste, syksy 2018.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: CC license granted by Yle (Q54718):

Tämä teos on lisensoitu Creative Commons Nimeä-JaaSamoin 4.0 Kansainvälinen -lisenssillä.

Geohakkeri (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I do not see a free license on the cited page. In any event, Yle is not the creator and it is likely that while they may have a fair use or a license to use the poster, it is unlikely that Yle has the right to freely license it to others. In order for the image to be restored, either (a) the actual creator must provide a free license using VRT or (b) an authorized officer of Yle must provide a free license together with written evidence to show that they have the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The license is in the lower section of the page, in box titled “Lataa juliste tästä!” (download poster here). The poster is credited to Kirsi Kukkurainen, an Yle employee. In any case, there is little reason to doubt a license given by the Finnish national public broadcasting company. (ping Kallerna as a Finnish-speaking admin) --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otim R WOlf-scaled.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I would like to request undeletion of File:Otim R WOlf-scaled.jpg.

The file was previously deleted, but I believe the deletion was mistaken. The image is an original unlicensed work, created and owned by User:Labejja_printery & wmhosts which are my other accounts and I have the rights to release it under a free license. It is intended for use in documenting someone's professional identity and related projects, which are of public interest.

I respectfully ask for reconsideration and restoration of the file, or guidance on how to properly re-upload it with the correct licensing information. Thank you for your assistance. FadelEA (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FadelEA: What does "my other accounts" mean? Why do you operate more than one account? Thuresson (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rob cavallo 2.jpg

This is a request to undelete File:Rob cavallo 2.jpg

I'm submitting this request on behalf of Rob and his team because the photographer, Jonathan Marlow, gave us permission to upload this photo. They additionally told us that they sent an email of written consent to the Wikipedia Commons. I also have a screenshot of the company's consent that I can send if needed.

Please let me know how to proceed.

--Team.ddm26 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The email handling team will arrange the file undeletion when everything is ready and processed. When following the procedure described in COM:VRTS, there is no need to request undeletion here. --Geohakkeri (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adam-Bandt-profile-2021.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: https://greens.org.au/vic/person/adam-bandt and https://greens.org.au/about/our-site:

This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence. Some rights reserved.

Does the license apply to images? I would guess so but the wording is a bit ambiguous. Geohakkeri (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaw Min Tun during the VOA interview on March 2023.jpg

Hi everyone, I’d like to request the undeletion of this Zaw Min Tun photo captured in a public domain VOA Burmese published video. Just to clarify, this interview was conducted by VOA Burmese, not Chinese media, you can see it on their official site here: https://burmese.voanews.com/a/6923345.html. The VOA logo is visible in the video, and it’s original VOA reporting. VOA is a U.S. government-funded broadcaster, which means this video is public domain under U.S. law (17 U.S.C. §105). There’s no third-party copyrighted material in it, so it qualifies for Commons. Even though other reporters from China Central Television Logo and other medias were present at the event, the interview itself is exclusively VOA’s work. I hope this clears up any confusion and that the file can be restored. KhantWiki (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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