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: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 10 subpages) • 0 malformed
30 copyvios • 1 duplicate • 7 adverts • 6 selfies • 27 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:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg

admin remark was "Dupe of Image:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover ArM.jpg" — but these pictures are different. File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg went through Wikipedia Fotowerkstatt and the original one (the undelete rq got "polished"). Note that ArM means User:Artmechnic. I need the original because of the EXIF data. Thanks a lot, best wishes from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC) (formerly "User:Mattes")[reply]

 Oppose Image is identical except that it has an unpleasant green cast and the other, good, image cited above has been cropped by a few pixels without any important loss. EXIF data is:

"Camera manufacturer Eastman Kodak Company
Camera model Picture Maker G3
Exposure time 8,538/512,279 sec (0.016666699201021)
F-number f/8
ISO speed rating 50
Date and time of data generation 13:28, 23 July 2006
Lens focal length 5.8 mm
Orientation Normal
Horizontal resolution 72 dpi
Vertical resolution 72 dpi
Software used Picture Maker G3 PM V5.2
File change date and time 13:28, 23 July 2006
Y and C positioning Centered
Exposure Program Normal program
Exif version 2.2
Date and time of digitizing 13:28, 23 July 2006
Image compression mode 4
APEX shutter speed 5.907
APEX aperture 6
APEX exposure bias 0.33
Maximum land aperture 3 APEX (f/2.83)
Metering mode Spot
Light source Daylight
Flash Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression
Color space sRGB
Sensing method One-chip color area sensor
Custom image processing Custom process
Exposure mode Auto exposure
White balance Auto white balance
Digital zoom ratio 0
Focal length in 35 mm film 35 mm
Scene capture type Standard
Contrast Hard
Saturation High saturation
Sharpness Hard
Subject distance range Distant view"

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Could we have it undeleted temporarily for the discussion since the Internet Archive is down? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: To allow transferring of fair use content to the English Wikipedia (w:WP:F). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary since the flag is available here. Thuresson (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a PNG file, not an SVG file. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa: Temporarily undeleted. Ping me when the transfer is done. Abzeronow (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redeleted as two days have passed. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ป้ายชื่อโรงเรียนประชาบดี.jpg

ภาพนี้ไม่ได้ละเมิดลิขสิทธิ์ เป็นภาพสถานที่จริงของโรงเรียนประชาบดีในปัจจุบัน ซึ่งภาพนี้เป็นภาพที่มีการอ้างอิงถึงได้เผยแพร่สู่สาธารณะอย่างชัดเจน — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPPNP (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Arco della Vittoria

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of Image:Genova-Piazza della Vittoria-Monumento al milite ignoto-DSCF7070.JPG and Image:Genova-Piazza della Vittoria-2C.jpg, both deleted in 2007 after this DR and this one. From the names of the files and the infos contained in the DRs it's highly likely that they depict the en:Arco della Vittoria, designed by en:Marcello Piacentini.
On this monument we've had recently 2 DRs, both ended keeping the images, see here and here. As stated in the two DRs, the monument was commissioned to Piacentini by the Genua Municipality. It was inaugurated in 1931, and therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1952, way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zaporizhzhia International Airport — Official exterior image.jpg

File is licensed CC BY 4.0, but deleted on the basis that there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Although that would apply if the photo was taken by an independent party, the photo was published on the official website of the Zaporizhzhia International Airport. Because they explicitly licensed it as CC BY 4.0 they have given up their panorama rights (in this one photo specifically). It is currently on the English Wikipedia, under fair use at w:en:File:Zaporizhzhia International Airport — Official exterior image.jpg. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 00:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the copyright owner is UVT Group, not the Airport authority, and we'd need VRT permission from the architect Abzeronow (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DR was Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Zaporizhzhia International Airport Abzeronow (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Abzeronow -- infringes on the architect's copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thalapathy 69 pooja.jpg

This image was taken by me using 'Canon EOS R5' camera and uploaded here. See it's exif data for the copyright and all details. Resolution of image is high compared to those pictures in websites, which shows I have clicked this image. Please undelete it. --KiranSaphoto (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Niazi Mustafa.jpg

I can no long view the image, but the deletion was based on creative-photograph versus non-creative. It should be reviewed. --RAN (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is here. https://elcinema.com/person/1022306/gallery/123499340 Clearly a posed photograph with sitter having a cigar in their mouth. Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Niazi Mustafa.jpg, note that P199's questions were not answered. Abzeronow (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:سعيدبودبوز.jpg

I dont think there is any reason to delet my picture! It is my own pic, and I published it already in comon. So please, just explain to me exactly why delet my pic?! I seek undelet my pic. Thank you--برناردو (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Clearly out of scope. See COM:NOTWEBHOST. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pas van Robby.jpg/File:Lachen is gezond.jpg/File:Wij hebben schik.jpg/File:Een mooi stukje op de Malediven.jpg/File:Robby Roeplall.jpg

Dear madam, sir,

My photo’s are for educational reasons updated to you without any ristrictions and copyright on it. Can you please put the pasphoto back? The photo’s can use worldwide and in the i.g. YouTube and radio Awaaz in the Netherlands (The Hague). It’s all ready for Wikipedia. Thank you for your trustful cooperation.

Have a nice day.

Yours sincerely,

Robby Roeplall (Rproeplall (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

File:Equality March 2022 in Kraków - Among Us.jpg

Protected by Freedom of Panorama in Poland--Trade (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sign is not permanently exhibited as required by Polish FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Polish FoP, as is the case with most, maybe all, other countries, requires that the work be permanently displayed. A sign held up by a person is clearly not permanent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tripulante Naranja .jpg

Too distinct to be a derivative work of Among Us--Trade (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Clearly derivative of Among Us. Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Agreed. Also note that the argument won't ever work. Either it is derivative, in which case we can't use it or it is personal art by a non-notable artist in which case it is out of scope and won't be kept.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Волохов Олексій.jpg

This Photo is from Facebook and other sources https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=734747633611870&set=a.123857498034223 https://www.chesno.org/politician/157097/ --Griboedov1111 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That's not much of a reason to undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo René LIORET.jpg

File:Photo René LIORET.jpg

Bonjour,

Je suis le collaborateur parlementaire de René LIORET. La photo que j'ai téléversé est bien la photo officielle du député, cette photo est utilisée en photo de profile pour Facebook et twitter mais nous sommes bien les ayant droit de cette photo que nous avons faite nous même. Merci de rectifier cette suppression abusive.

--Vincent bouzagheti (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14 octobre 2024 - Vincent BOUZAGHETI

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"