Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 3 subpages) • 0 malformed
3 copyvios • 1 duplicate • 2 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

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the videos fall under Template:PD-South Korea-organization, but some appear to have been filmed in the U.S. and produced by U.S. personnel or networks. It would be better if there were more detailed descriptions or links to the sources. There are no direct links available for now.--Namoroka (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Carl Lindberg confirmed this was not a copyright registration  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: to check if his opinion is that I should undelete this. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The records starting with "V" and then numbers are "recorded documents" -- they are not registrations or renewals. It is simply a statement sent to the Copyright Office and dutifully published. There is no verification of any claims. It's usually to note a transfer of copyright and the like. So, those records above are not themselves evidence of anything, other than they think or hope that copyright exists. I have no idea if there were copyright notices on the magazine or not, or if there are other, valid registrations. But, those two cited records are not registrations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

I would argue that the arguments in the DR for deletion were flawed:

  • User:LeftRightRightLeft's nomination "We need a fair use image 'stead!" seems to imply that the file page on the English Wikipedia should include something like w:Template:Non-free album cover instead of {{YouTube CC-BY}}.
  • User:Heylenny first argued that the photograph was not a work for hire belonging to the record label, but rather an independently authored work requiring special licensing. Heylenny later argued that, because the cover contains the text "All rights reserved," that it can never be relicensed (unlike many files officially relicensed via COM:VRT).

The CC BY licenses on Warner Music New Zealand's YouTube channel (an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group) have been found many times to be legitimate (see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png). Thus, this file should be reinstated. (As I said in the DR, if the point was to question the validity of the YouTube channel's CC BY licenses, that should be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC [or perhaps even w:WP:RFC/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!] but not in a DR nor a UR.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.


The files that should be reviewed are:
* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

File:EXITOS1530.jpg

This logo is the official logo of a radio station I run as News Director (WUPR Exitos 1530 AM-98.3 FM Utuado, Puerto Rico). This logo was created at our radio station by one of our creatives and has been used in the past few years as the station's official logo on our website www.exitos1530.com, on facebook.com/exitos1530am, on twitter: @EXITOS1530, and even in official documents such as sales contracts and FCC filings.

https://www.exitos1530.com
https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/am-profile/wupr
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:5f00:9440:f22d:d8fc:f538:b7f5:afe6 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment No such file has been deleted. Since you did not use your Username, we cannot look at your deleted files, so there is nothing to do here. In any event, policy requires that an authorized representative of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Probably concerns File:EXITOS 1530.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thuresson - was that simply a good guess, or do you have a trick I should know? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched English Wikipedia for en:WUPR and checked the history. Thuresson (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose For the recent file we need a free license permission via email as described in VRT. However, the initial version may be restored as {{PD-textlogo}}. Ankry (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Killing of Iryna Zarutska (cropped).webm

I understand that re-opening this discussion will be just as contentious as closing it, but the reasoning of the closing administrator just struck me as fundamentally wrong. To quote the rationale, in full: “COM:DIGNITY explicitly overrules COM:NOTCENSORED when the two come into conflict, as is the case here.” This has two main issues. Firstly, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people § Moral issues is primarily concerned with privacy, with non-consensual sexual images as a secondary concern. However, neither issue is at play here: nothing about this video (or the other deleted videos, see the end of the discussion) is sexual, and the videos were taken on public transportation where there is no expectation of privacy whatsoever. The second issue is that the “Moral issues” policy says nothing about the censorship policy, and in this case was clearly used to butcher it. This closure is especially inappropriate given the general requirement to host files centrally on Commons as opposed to locally, where individual projects would be able to properly balance “moral issues” and censorship concerns. The in-use policy exists to avoid the obvious consequence of this discussion, which is that “controversial” files will all be hosted locally to avoid dealing with Commons drama. [Separately, assuming (incorrectly) that the “Moral issues” policy applies, it would be improper to apply it to this case; but this is just rehashing my argument during the discussion, whereas this discussion is for a separate reason.] TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose COM:DIGNITY is not just sexual images, it's any image that doesn't respect the moral rights of the subject. The legal heirs of the deceased have expressed that they don't want videos of this shared. Also a video showing the murder of someone who is not notable is a privacy violation. TSC close was proper, and deletion was a moral act in my opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abzeronow: As I said, sexual images is the secondary goal (of two), the other being privacy; neither is implicated here. The policy does not require us to respond to the demands of “legal heirs of the deceased” as they have no rights in the videos at all. Her murder is notable; there is no privacy to violate; and basing deletion decisions on whether it is a “moral act” is bad for many reasons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose as closer. I do want to note that I based the line TE(æ)A,ea. quoted on "Unless the image has possible personality rights issues, [...] Wikimedia Commons will not censor or remove media that users find objectionable or offensive" from COM:NOTCENSORED. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Abzeronow and The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Yann (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request the undeletion of the following files. All photographs are connected to the artist **Enzo Cacciola**, who holds the copyright on all works. The authors of the photographs are listed next to each file.

All files are legitimate and covered by the copyright of the artist Enzo Cacciola. Please undelete them. --Herrera Jules 88 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

  1. All of these images that show a work of art require a free license from the artist using VRT.
  2. All of them that are more than a flat photograph of a 2D work require a free license from the actual photographer.
  3. Images in (2) that include a work of art require two licenses -- one from the photographer and one from the artist.

I note that Krdbot has placed a {{Permission received}} tag on these. If the license is from the artist, it will suffice for (1), but not (2) or (3). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBFC 18.svg

File:Fr_pmhscdj1p131_001.jpg

Hello, Numerous images have been deleted from my French user page. These images came from the Inducks website, whose license states that the database content (including the images) is copyright-free. However, the images are actually owned by The Walt Disney Company. I'm not up to date on the Disney license, and many websites use images from Disney publications without permission. - If the images belong to the Inducks database, they are copyright-free, and I can normally use them for my Wikipedia page. - But if they belong to The Walt Disney Company, I have no idea. Here is the list of deleted images:

File:Xfc aatk488 001.jpg
File:Us vp 0001 01 001.jpg
File:Nl ddvs 0006b 001.jpg
File:Fr pmhscdj1p005 001.jpg
File:Fi vk 2008s 001.jpg
File:Fr pmhscdj1p131 001.jpg
File:D-SAN 2012-041.jpg
File:Us fawddd 1fp 001.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmfslsl (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The Walt Disney Company is known for enforcing their copyrights, eg. Mickey Mouse Protection Act. You can not upload cartoons by Don Rosa and claim that you are the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mickey Mouse has not been owned by Walt Disney since 2024 (I think). Again, I found the images on a royalty-free site. Drmfslsl (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Only 1928 and 1929 designs of Mickey Mouse and derivatives of those are public domain. Later designs are still under copyright. (EDIT: Donald Fauntleroy Duck is also still copyrighted. In 2030, he'll start to enter the public domain) Abzeronow (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Par contre, il n'y a aucune image de Mickey Mouse dans les images supprimés. Les images proviennent d'Inducks, qui est libre de droit. Drmfslsl (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmfslsl: "libre de droit" ne veut rien dire. Ces images dont des oeuvres dérivées de characters sous droits d'auteur. Yann (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
La licence Inducks est ici. Et je ne sais toujours pas si les illustrations appartiennent à Inducks ou à Disney... Et puis des images appartenant à Disney, il y en a partout sur internet. Drmfslsl (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Inducks database includes all data in that database, as well as the definition of the structure of that database." [...] "It also does not include any pictures that may be accompanying distributions of the Inducks database." Thuresson (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the images I scanned myself, can I use them? Drmfslsl (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmfslsl: No. Please read COM:DW. Yann (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D'accord ; j'abandonne le débat. Merci. Drmfslsl (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Guillermo Francos - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

This image comes from the official portal *Mapa del Estado* (https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/), which belongs to the Argentina.gob.ar portal. In the "About" section of Argentina.gob.ar it is expressly indicated that the published content can be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, the same license through which I uploaded the images to Wikipedia Commons.

For this reason, I believe that the files do not violate any copyright regulations and I request that should be undeleted. Expressly the source and license are as follows:
- Source: https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ministerios/Jefatura-de-Gabinete-de-Ministros/48/detalle
- Portal licensing policy: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca
KmiKC16 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same case with these other portraits that I have uploaded, as I detail them below:

KmiKC16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have undeleted these files. Could someone speaking Spanish confirm that the license is valid please? If that is the case, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Yann (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support @Yann:peer Yann, but i speak in Spanish but im not a licensereviewer (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca) but in Spanish says:Por supuesto. Podés copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptarlo para cualquier propósito, incluso comercial, siempre que cumplas con los términos de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional. También podés compartir un trámite, una noticia o una página en tus redes sociales. La información de Argentina.gob.ar es pública, es de todos nosotros. (ENG:Of course. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY-4.0). You can also share a procedure, a news story, or a page on your social media. The information on Argentina.gob.ar is public; it belongs to all of us.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The the link https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca is for content from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ (the actual T&C is here https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones). These images were taken from https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/, a different website. Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rod Wave at Lakewood HS (cropped).jpg and File:Rod Wave at Lakewood HS.jpg

Lakewood High School is part of Pinellas County Schools, which derives its authority from the US state of Florida. Any works by the school are thus under {{PD-FLGov}}. Bremps... 20:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elara New York City MIRT.png did not depict a game or other for-sale copyrighted work

As per the subject line, the uploaded file File:Elara New York City MIRT.png (sourced from a creative commons YouTube video) did not depict a game or other for-sale copyrighted work, it depicted a public interactive experience that participation in was and always has been completely free by Nintendo's own discretion for decades — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceButcher875 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Mario is still a copyrighted character, and the Mushroom Kingdom is also copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:THG Cake Anyone?.jpg

"Posting this image here is a joke. It is not useful for educational purposes."

| High-quality illustration depicting Category:Chibi characters, Category:Fan art of literature, and Category:Peeta Mellark (Currently, there is only one image of this character). Can be used for educational purposes.


"This is not a place to present images that are detached from reality."

File:Illustrated example of a kemono furry.png 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 02:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Couple on Fire.jpg

This file was removed due to its "poor quality" and the fact that it is a derivative work. The characters' faces look recognizable, and the body proportions are more or less accurate. There are images of the same quality on Wikimedia Commons, some of which are even used in Wikipedia articles.

File:Harry Potter.jpg

File:Gollum-Smeagol.jpg

File:PewDiePie fanart.jpg

This file is a derivative work, but it passes COM:FAN. The characters don't look much as their movie counterparts. The chariot depicted in the illustration is significantly different from the one featured in the film. Two people holding hands and riding in a chariot is not a super-duper original complex idea that can be protected by copyright. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 06:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

Heikki Lund (s. 16. joulukuuta 1963 Oulu) on suomalainen näyttelijä, näytelmäkirjailija, muusikko ja ohjaaja. Hän on kirjoittanut yli kaksikymmentä näytelmää, esittänyt runsaasti kulttuurihistoriallisia monologeja sekä toiminut Keski-Uudenmaan Teatterin perustajajäsenenä ja johtajana.

Heikki Lund (born 16 December 1963 in Oulu, Finland) is a Finnish actor, playwright, musician and director. He has written more than twenty plays, performed numerous cultural-historical monologues, and was a founding member and long-time director of the Keski-Uudenmaan Teatteri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikkilund (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only content deleted from the user is his User Page. They should be used for Commons related activities, not as a CV. Günther Frager (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not an undeletion request. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"