Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 • 2 reasons • 8 subpages) • 3 malformed
35 copyvios • 12 duplicates • 18 adverts • 154 selfies • 191 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:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is similar to a FOP situation. The picture would be OK on Commons, even if a crop might not be. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If it's the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/85567416@N03/37211095091, I would say it's directly in line with Ets-Hokin. Similar to de minimis, cropping to just the label may be an issue (it changes the "underlying work"). Though in this case, the only copyrightable parts of the label are the pictorial representations of the fruit and leaves, so that may be actual de minimis as well. But a pictorial label would still be "incidental" to the photo of the entire bottle regardless, per that ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Yes, that's the file. The other one is this picture. Yann (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandraprabha Saikiani Stamp.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India stamps of India are now PD per the Government Open Data License. I'm also requesting that the following files be undeleted for the same reason.

Along with all the files that were previously deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of India and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Koiladababu (the second one might need extra review). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info #1 is not a stamp of India. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filipe Nery Xavier commemorative stamp - 450th anniversary of Portuguese India.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Srpsko carstvo.jpg

I sincerely apologize if i have done something i should not have done.I am new to Wikipedia(publishing perspective). I uploaded the file titled "Srpsko carstvo" and the file "Stefan Uroš IV Dušan Nemanjić" on 11th january,2025.

I would more or less understand the picture of Dušan,but the file "Srpsko carstvo" was a map made by my hands. The file is the map of the Serbian Empire i personally made,while the picture of Dušan i added the full name which i haven't found anywhere on the internet,so i thought the picture was fine.

Everything was fine until i have tried putting it on the page on wikipedia,which ultimately resulted in a deletion of both pictures. If me putting the pictures on the wikipedia was a mistake,i am truly sorry.

I implore you to,at the very least,restore the file "Srpsko carstvo" I know it might not seem special,but i am sure you understand,as creators,the sentimental value of personal work and it means a lot.

Thank you in advance and best wishes from me!

Stefan Binić — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Binić (talk • contribs) 04:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The portrait of Stefan Dusan appears in many places on the Web. It may be in the public domain, but it is up to you to prove that. As for the map, it is hard to believe that you drew the map from a blank sheet of paper and inserted the many place names the appear on it. It would be a foolish thing to waste time on as there are many base maps available that are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,@Jameslwoodward.
Huge thank you for your quick reply and answer.
If it helps in any way,i will provide you with a link to a quick Youtube video i made which shows three pictures of the map "Srpsko carstvo" in works.
[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc7E08M1YOA
That might be enough evidence,if not to restore the map,then,at the very least,show you i would rather not have anything than have work online that is not of my own.
I completely understand and agree with the need to be seriously careful when it comes to personal works of the creators and protecting their work online from being stolen in any way by others.It is a huge personal relief knowing my work is safe in your hands.
I originally made the map only for the youtube video with the purpose of showing,at least,the glimse of who our ancestors were,while me trying to put the map on Wikipedia was just a "if it is accepted,it's a bonus.If not,my main purpose was done".
If you're still adamant with your decision that the map "Srpsko carstvo" is not acceptable on the Wikipedia platform,i understand.
Thank you,again,in advance for your time and the discussion you've allowed me to have with you.
Stefan Binić Stefan Binić (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video shows a base map with dots for the towns. Where did the base map come from. It says nothing about the labor required to name all the dots and does not speak to the question of the image of Stefan Dusan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[4]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arizona_Permanent_Passenger_Plate_CWT6226.jpg File:Alabama_2010_Passenger_Plate_5A91H70.jpg File:Alabama_2019_Passenger_Plate_5BB4343.jpg File:Arizona_Passenger_2022_plate_YFA3HG.jpg

The reason I'm requesting these photos to be undeleted is because I took them myself, I don't understand why they were deleted given that fact. All four pictures say they were deleted due to COM:NETCOPYVIO but even after looking into that I'm still not completely sure what it is. Thank you. Sir Henry E Warren Esquire (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please read COM:DW. Yann (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Us-ny-co.gif

This file is the flag for the county in which I live, and it is public domain. It was previously removed because it had been converted into a GIF, however this does not constitute anything copyrightable as no change was made, one can see the original deletion page for a better explanation of this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narfhead (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But how did this flag become public domain? Thuresson (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mor Baselios Paulose II.webp

The image uploaded is a pretty common image used for Mor Baselios Paulose II. This photograph is used at his tomb at Malecruz Dayara, Puthencruz. It is not under any form of copyright. A simple google search would show you that it is a commonly used image of him.

https://www.google.com/search/about-this-image?img=H4sIAAAAAAAA_-MS5WjeefPs7Osdl-oFnm69fGjf9ul9BxgBFKeTFRcAAAA%3D&q=https:%2F%2Fbpccollege.ac.in%2Fh-b-baselios-poulose-ii-catholicos%2F&cs=1&ctx=iv&hl=en-US&sa=X&ved=0CA0Qg4ILahcKEwjo-ovYy7KLAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halershes (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject died in 1996. By which process did this image become public domain then? Thuresson (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No response to a relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alberto Bogo.jpg

Buongiorno, ho visto che la fotografia in questione è stata cancellata. La motivazione è che "The file description says that the photo's author is "Greta Ratto", but the file author name is "Anna Bisanzio". No source given to back the claim of licensing under "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". Il fatto è che la fotografia mi è stata fornita direttamente dal soggetto della fotografia. Si tratta perciò di una sua fotografia personale che è stata scattata da Greta Ratto. Come posso fare per far sì che la foto possa essere ripristinata? Grazie.Anna Bisanzio (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Bisanzio: Please ask Greta Ratto to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<Google Translate>Per favore chiedi a Greta Ratto di inviare un permesso per una licenza libera tramite COM:VRT/it. Grazie,</Google Translate>

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

File:N.B.D.S. station Liempde 1913.jpg

Source information was provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pduive23 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: No real reason for deletion, but the license was wrong. I fixed it. --Yann (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:N.B.D.S. station kruispunt beugen.jpg

Source information was provided! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pduive23 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: No real reason for deletion, but the license was wrong. I fixed it. --Yann (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdullah el-Hararî.webp

I spoke to Projects Association about the photo and asked for permission to use it on Wikipedia. They agreed. --PainKilLord (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC) 10/02/2025[reply]

@PainKilLord: Permission to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. We need a permission for a free license from the copyright holder via email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Alabaster, Alabama (2014-2022).svg

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

--2409:8934:4489:5B5:9CC6:25FF:FEF8:A410 00:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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