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: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
83 copyvios • 347 duplicates • 1 advert • 53 selfies • 37 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

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

I created this page in the past and redirected technical redirects from Wikipedia to this page, because Meta has the same. I changed the target of the previous redirect Real to Commons:Interwiki prefix titles because for technical reasons, "C:Real" on English Wikipedia redirects to this wiki, and I did the same for C: The Contra Adventure. For technical reasons, interwiki hard redirects aren't allowed. I don't see any other redirects from ENWP that could do this, but we could do this to pages on other wikis, too. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues with having such a page, it is a net-positive and not disruptive to help those accessing our sites.  Support. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

As said copyright on Bluto was not renewed  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Abzeronow and Krd: as the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My information at the time said that Bluto's copyright was in fact renewed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: In Commons:Character copyrights, Bluto is mentioned as "not renewed". So? Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Character copyrights can be difficult -- they don't expire all at once usually. Each time a new cartoon or episode or movie or whatever uses a character, and adds more details to their backstory or changes a drawing style or things like that, it sort of creates a new derivative work of the character. The copyright to the new details lasts 95 years from that date. So, characters don't expire all at once -- they expire bit by bit as each work that added detail or changed things expires. The original Mickey Mouse movie has expired, but lots of later details and appearance changes have not. I don't know how reliable it is, but https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Bluto seems to say the original appearance comic was not renewed. But, it sounds like the character was altered in 1933, and those don't seem to be listed in the "public domain appearances". So if there are significant 1933 changes still under copyright, and this image incorporates those, there would be a problem. If this is the 1932 original, it would seem to be OK. I don't really know a lot about the history of that character. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

Deleted as clear violation (F1), despite clearly being a pd-textlogo.

The font is too simple to be copyrighted, the rectangular shape and gold gradient don't adhere to TOO either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Mojang Studios were US based, I would support that. But as they are Swedish, I have doubts. Ankry (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info See COM:TOO Sweden where the text logo for en:Entombed (logo here) was considered by a court of law to be above TOO. Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that the above example is not helpful here: the Minecraft logo is much simpler than the Entombed's one. However doubts remain. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 25 July 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]

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

I am Hasan Md. Shahriare, a published researcher and CTO of Magnetism Tech Limited. My Wikidata item is Q135092463, which references my peer-reviewed IEEE publication (Q135179996).

I am both the subject and original photographer of the image. I re-uploaded the photo with a valid license (CC0 1.0) and added a neutral caption for Wikimedia-wide educational use, not self-promotion. The image is intended for use in my Wikidata item and possible future biographical content on Wikipedia and other projects.

I request that the deletion be reconsidered as the image supports an existing, notable Wikidata item with academic context and satisfies COM:SCOPE and licensing guidelines.

Thank you.

--Hasanshahriare (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral Just wonder, that who captured your profile picture? If that's just yourself then there's a concern called COM:SELFIE on restoration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, copyright is another issue to be resolved if the Wikidata item is kept. On-wiki licensing per the "Own work" declaraion does not apply: (1) to photos that are not in the original camera resolution, (2) to photos without EXIF metadata, (3) to photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, (4) to photos of identifiable (non-anonymous) authorship. At least few of the requirements are violated here. In any of the mentioned cases, a free license permission from the photo copyright holder through VRT may be needed unless the licensing can be proven basing on earlier publication. So even if it is undeleted, I will nominate if as {{No permission}}. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't think this is a universal requirement. The lighting and framing are obviously non-professional, making it very plausible for it to have been taken with a webcam or mobile phone on a stand. In these cases, it is reasonable to take the uploader at their word. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain just like the current Rassemblement National logo on wikimedia. --Ryegun (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this logo is considered to meet the threshold of originality, why are similar, unlicensed logos (kept under the PD‑textlogo rationale) treated differently? Commons policy (e.g. COM:TOO, COM:L, COM:LOGO) requires files to be free in both the source country and the U.S. If this file is copyrightable under that standard, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to comparable cases? I’d appreciate clarification on which specific elements here are deemed original and how that differs from other retained logos. Ryegun (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not simply geometric shapes. Sources are: [1] [2]
SVG derived from: Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg. France has a lower ToO than Italy. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few aspects that seem somewhat nebulous in that deletion request. I can't view the deleted file as such, so please tell me if I'm missing something. From what the uploader says, their file File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg is essentially a copy of the file File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, with only the colour green changed to blue and the letters MSI at the bottom changed to FN (the result looking something like this). Whatever the copyright status of the basic design of the original file (File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg) might be, most people would probably say that the small changes (colour and letters), are not copyrightable as such, in Italy nor in France. One argument of the nominator of the DR seems to imply that the basic design, which is essentially identical in the two files (excepted for the small uncopyrightable changes mentioned), would be below the threshold of originality in Italy but would be above the threshold of originality in France. I'm not sure that we can really make such a distinction between those two countries. It would seem more consistent to treat those two quasi identical files in the same manner. If File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg is PD-textlogo, then so should the other file. Anyway, another question is why France would enter into consideration in relation with this design and Commons policy. The design being of Italian origin, and the changes being uncopyrightable, then logically the country of reference for the possibly copyrighted work, i.e. the design, is therefore still Italy. A third question is, in the hypothesis that the design would be copyrightable, what would be the year of expiration of the copyright? Probably not the years mentioned in the DR. According to File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, the author of the design would be Giorgio Almirante, a MSI founder whose life years are 1914-1988. So, if that attribution is correct, and if the design is even copyrightable anywhere, be it in Italy or in France, then the year of expiration of the copyright would be 2059. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I have no idea why the Italian version is accepted on Commons, but this is certainly complex enough to have a copyright in France. Now if it was created before 1955, it may be in the public domain in France, but that remains to be proved. Yann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Movimento Sociale Italiano. Yann (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not an obvious case, maybe an admin can make an attempt at closing that DR, so this UDR could then be closed accordingly. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But for the policy of Commons, the only two relevant countries for a work of Italian origin are the United States and Italy. So, the only question is if it is freely usable or not in the United States and in Italy. That it (and any minor variation of it) might be freely usable or not in China, France, Egypt or other countries does not enter into consideration for Commons. It seems that the original was created circa 1947 (it:Fiamma tricolore). Contributors of Commons have made various slightly different redrawings. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree. So PD-France may be OK, but PD-textlogo is certainly not. Idem for the Italian version. Yann (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff and Isaac at their wedding reception.jpg

why was this F5'd? seems to be licensed here. ltbdl (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support for restore the file. Someone added the template "No license since." There's nothing in the last saved version that would prevent a restore. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 06:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose While it is declared in the description to be a selfie made by one of the subjects, this seems to be a studio photo. Also no original camera EXIF that could contain information about a self-timer. We generally do not accept the "Own work" declaration for such photos requiring a free license evidence or VRT permission for such photos. However, as this is an old upload, receiving such a permission is unlikely. Personally, I think that the photo was made by a professional photographer and not by one of the subjects as declared. Of course, I refer here to the photo of two men, not to the photo of a women used for vandalizing that should not be undeleted anyway. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: since when is a self-timer required to take a photo by yourself? ltbdl (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. But its lack may constitute a reasonable doubt about self authorship. Especially for a professional photo that is declared as a selfie and does not look like a selfie. Lack of EXIF is another doubt itself. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: However, missing EXIF data should not be a problem, as it is often missing from older uploads. An online search for the picture leads one to a memorial page. Jeffpw died in 2009. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eh? you can take a photo without a timer easily, just get a remote. ltbdl (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uffici finanziari Verona.jpg

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Uffici finanziari Verona.jpg, deleted in 2014 after this DR. The image depicts the it:Uffici finanziari di Verona, a building designed by the architect en:Libero Cecchini and built in 1966. As we can read on it.wiki (where the information is sourced with a book: Federica Guerra, Libero arbitrio, in ArchitettiVerona, vol. 04, n. 135, Verona, Ordine degli Architetti Pianificatori Paesaggisti e Conservatori della provincia di Verona, ottobre/dicembre 2023, pp. 70-77), the building was commissioned by the Treasure Ministry. Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1987. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and previous UDRs. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Axis powers

This was a gallery page I made featuring the flags and maps of Axis powers. Simply thinking the Axis powers are limited to Japan, Italy, and Germany, and thinking the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete the gallery page outright. --Thegoofhere (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I got the list of Axis powers from Wikipedia Thegoofhere (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I deleted this. It is a haphazard collection of flags and other items, some duplicated. It includes various conquered nations as "Axis Powers" when their participation in the war was forced. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Clearly not nonsense or an uncontroversial candidate for speedy deletion, but a content dispute. May be nominated for COM:DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr M Idris Ali Biography and Publications Evidence Pack 2025.pdf

I request undeletion of the file File:Dr M Idris Ali Biography and Publications Evidence Pack 2025.pdf.

Reason: I am the creator and compiler of this PDF. It contains a biography, CV, publication list, awards, and achievements of Dr. Muhammad Idris Ali, a Bangladeshi soil scientist. The file was deleted under reason F10 (“personal photo by non-contributors”), but that does not apply here, since this is my own work.

I am the copyright holder of the compilation and I freely release it under the license **CC BY-SA 4.0**. The purpose of the file is to serve as an evidence pack to support a Wikipedia biography of Dr. Ali. It consolidates verifiable, factual information and does not contain copyrighted third-party photos or materials.

I request restoration of the file so it can be properly referenced in the Wikipedia article draft on Dr. Muhammad Idris Ali.

--Eishrat (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The word "photo" in F10 does not apply here -- the word "document" would be better. Commons is not a repository for resumes. As someone who has contributed nothing to Commons except this document, you are not entitled to upload anything here unless it serves an educational purpose. You can use this document to support your case on WP directly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose (1) out of scope. (2) If this document has been published elsewhere (including on paper), it is exactly equally citable by Wikipedia whether it is on Commons or not. If it has not been published in any reliable source, it is exactly equally uncitable by Wikipedia whether it is on Commons or not. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Jardine.JARDINE

And others that I am not able to view but an administrator will.

I have to say that it is wholly inappropriate for an admin to nominate a file for deletion, make a determination, delete the file(s), and close the DR, all by themselves in under 3 hours, as they did here before anyone could even possibly notice and engage. Some of the files didn't even get the luxury of a proper DR. The files may be copyrighted, or may not, but nobody even had a chance of properly looking into the matter. I am asking for that opportunity. Fry1989 eh? 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These, as well as all of the uploader's other uploads, were unambiguous copyright violations. None of the nations that Jardine.JARDINE uploaded passport images of release government works under a free license. I checked every single COM:[country] page before deleting the files. I also opened a bunch of DRs at the same time for passports that are currently in use, though that's purely a courtesy, because all of them also qualify for speedy deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You checked for any licensing in each country's copyright laws regarding national symbols, I'm sure, but that isn't the entire story. The question is multi-faceted. Firstly, are these actually government works, or works by the user imitating that by the governments? They are two different things. We have numerous SVG passport covers that are not actually the work of their respective governments, but imitations, File:Greek Passport (1980).svg being a good example. Secondly, even if the files were works by their governments, that still doesn't inherently make them copyrighted, depending on the source material. There are numerous examples where a government has created some some sort of identity using our freely licensed files here on Commons. It happens more often than you might think. In the case of the Greek passport cover above, the monochrome coat of arms is clearly derived from File:Coat of arms of Greece (military).svg. The leaves are identical, and the stripped pattern for the shield is a simple modification. Even if that SVG cover had been created by the Greek Government, if they used our SVG files as the source material, that's a derivative work and not an original work. Actually comparing the images tells much more as to their status than merely checking for licensing. Fry1989 eh? 19:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose To the first point. They are one of three things:

  1. A government creation
  2. A third party copy of the government creation close enough to be useful as an example
  3. A third party copy that differs sufficiently from the government creation so that it is not a DW.
  1. Is a copyvio unless government works are PD there.
  2. Is a copyvio as a DW unless government works are PD there.
  3. Is not useful here because it is too far from the original.

Unless government works are PD, in all three cases we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no question these are at least reasonably accurate facsimiles of the covers of passports of the respective countries.
On the other hand: it is not immediately obvious to me that all of these are copyrighted, and probably a discussion would have been helpful (and still would be helpful). The coat of arms of Belize, previously that of British Honduras, has changed only a little since 1829 and even less since 1953; about the only difference is the elimination of the Union Jack. I'm not at all sure there is anything copyrightable about this particular emblazon. Similarly for Jamaica and Suriname, though not for Guyana. Certainly none of these files have copyrightable elements aside from the coats of arms. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the Jamaica one and came to similar conclusions as Jmabel. I don't think these are "unambiguous copyvios" because there's a good chance the designs are actually old enough to be in the PD, or similar enough to old designs to be in the PD. I  Support undeleting them for subsequent regular deletion requests so everybody has the opportunity to weigh in on the matter. --Rosenzweig τ 20:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two problems here, both endemic.
Firstly, should the same admin editor both tag something for speedy deletion, and be the one to action it? Policy says that they can, but is this a good thing? Should we restrict it?
Secondly, were these (I very much doubt it) suitable candidates for speedy deletion at all? Speedy deletion is massively mis-used for this. It is not 'deletions done quickly' or even 'deletions done urgently'. Instead its essential feature is that they're deletions that are simple, straightforward and it can be assumed that they will not be opposed by any other GF editor. If they become in any way complicated, then they're no longer suitable candidates. This should be an absolute here. We don't get to choose speedy deletion because we feel like it, but only if it's already a simple enough candidate to permit it. Copyright? We all know what a minefield that is.
Thirdly, the question of time (as Fry raises). I see their point, but to my mind the fix for this is to enforce the second point, not to mandate a minimum time. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCV faculty and FCU at plaque unveiling.jpg

Per COM:PDM and #Venezuela February 2019: own work by Provea uploaded under a Public Domain Mark.--NoonIcarus (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luis-Camara-Manoel--Large.jpg

This file is available at this page:

https://www.portugalemutah.org/not%C3%ADcias/luis-camara-manoel-consul-honor%C3%A1rio-de-portugal-em-utah

And the site's legal disclaimer says that published images are "available for free use for non-commercial purposes, and attribution is not required. By using these images, the user agrees not to use them in a misleading or unlawful manner."

https://sites.google.com/portugalemutah.org/english/legal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebolotas (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Commercial use must be allowed for a file to be on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rashid Mahmood Soomro.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is taken by our team at Mansehra, a city of KPK Pakistan where the person Rashid Mahmood Soomro attended a public gathering. It seems the reporter has some misunderstanding or mistakenly report this image. Zahidhashmi95 (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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