Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

168 copyvios • 189 duplicates • 14 adverts • 18 selfies • 98 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Slovenian municipal coats of arms

I request review and (partial) undeletion of the files deleted as result of this request without a proper discussion. Although the request was actually mentioned by a third user in one of the unofficial communication channels of the Slovenian Wikipedia community, the requester or involved Commons administrators could have notified the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion. Since these files are actively used on the project, such a notification could have helped ensure that relevant comments were made already during the deletion discussion.

Generally, coats of arms are exempt from copyright law in Slovenia, see Template:PD-Slovenia-exempt. One might argue that some images were "independent creations" (as per the earlier discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of coats of arms of Slovenian municipalities). However, (1) it is highly debatable whether such works can be considered original if they only follow the textual description; and (2) the requester did not verify the actual source of the images. The link he cited is dead, and deleting files originating from dead links could have far-reaching consequences for the project. One of Commons’ goals is to preserve free media, and losing it due to link rot seems counterproductive. In the case of dead links, the assumption should not automatically be that the files are problematic. Fortunately, there are initiatives such as the Internet Archive that help us verify sources.

While some images indeed have come from third-party websites (which are now also dead, for example for Žirovnica), in several cases the files are direct reproductions of official heraldic acts. For example, the deleted coat of arms of Žužemberk (cached copy of the file information page) cites http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc20.html#si-zv as the source. This in turn cites Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Žužemberk, št. 8/00, which is an official municipal document. See the archived source. This is an official document, which means that in addition to the copyright exemption, it is also considered informacija javnega značaja (information of public character). Under Slovenian law, such materials must be publicly available and freely reusable, since official acts cannot be restricted by copyright in a way that prevents public access.

Therefore, even if a particular depiction were argued to be an “independent creation,” its publication within an official act places it firmly in the public domain as information of public character.

I propose to:

• Undelete the deleted files to allow the community to review them carefully on a case-by-case basis, using archived sources (e.g. via Internet Archive)
• Subsequent edits by CommonsDelinker on Slovenian Wikipedia should also be reversed where the files are restored (see sl:Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker)

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Smihael: Maybe, it would be better to upload images that are clearly covered by the exemption and request undeletion only if the upload is prevented due to being binary identical with the deleted ones? Ankry (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So due to an overly narrow interpretation of copyright and lack of notice to the affected community, valuable files were lost and now others must dig through archives or search for alternatives to replace them. This is counterproductive — these files should be restored in good faith, and the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester and judged on an individual basis. In general, coats of arms are exempt from copyright protection in Slovenia, and the claim that these are copyrightable individual interpretations is doubtful at best, if not outright flawed... What definitely was flawed, is the deletion process itself, as it wrongly assumed that all files from a certain dead link were problematic. Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down: are we just going to delete thousands of imported images simply because their licenses are no longer easily verifiable? -- Miha (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. First, we cannot manufacture discussion. The DR was open for three and a half months. All of the uploaders were notified and no  Keep appeared there. We get about 10,000 new files every day and around 1,500 of them must be deleted. Most of this work is done by 20 Admins. We simply do not have the human resources to even think about "notifi[ng] the local community through the village pump of the local project about the ongoing discussion".

As for "Imagine a hypothetical situation where Flickr shuts down", this is why we have License Review -- so that there is a record of the license status of files that might otherwise be a problem. As far as I know, none of the uploaders requested license review for any of the files.

Also, please note that "the burden of proof that they are not free should lie with the deletion requester" is backward. Commons clear policy is that those who would keep a file must prove that it is either PD or freely licensed.

Finally, I examined a random dozen of the files before the deletion and found none that qualified for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The more pressing question is whether all coats of arms published on official pages of Slovenian municipalities are public domain or only those that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Those are in fact different legal questions, and I think we should not be conflating them.

• First (copyright): coats of arms, when adopted as official municipal symbols, generally do not qualify for ordinary copyright protection in Slovenia — they are treated as official symbols or public emblems rather than ordinary works. The question of derivative versions is separate: such variants usually do not cross the threshold of originality, as they only follow the wording describing the coat of arms. If there are substantial differences, we should anyway avoid them to prevent confusion.
• Second (access / source of the file): The doctrine of informacija javnega značaja (the right of access to public information) requires that documents held by public authorities — including municipal graphical identity or coat of arms files — be made accessible and reusable, unless a statutory exception applies. This principle is recognized in the Constitution (see https://e-kurs.si/komentar/kaj-je-informacija-javnega-znacaja/) and is implemented in the Access to Public Information Act (ZDIJZ). ZDIJZ applies to all state bodies, local government bodies, and related public law entities, requiring them to provide access and re-use of public information (including works created by them or acquired from others) unless specifically exempt (for example: national security, personal data protection, internal deliberations, trade secrets) regardless of the medium or format in which the information is stored. Thus, whether the coat of arms was published in Uradni list or only on a municipal website is irrelevant under access law — what matters is that the public authority holds the file and that it is not subject to a statutory exemption.
• There remains the separate question of how the coat of arms may be used to prevent misuse. That is regulated by municipal acts (usage ordinances, design rules, prohibitions), and is separate from copyright concerns. On Wikimedia Commons, you will often see notices such as despite the copyright status, additional restrictions may apply (e.g. photos of cultural heritage, local usage rules). So potential presence of usage restrictions does not automatically invalidate a file’s eligibility on Commons as long as the file itself is not under copyright protection.

To sum up: the version of the coat of arms found in municipal materials can generally be used without issue, because it has already been published by the public authority, is publicly available, and is effectively exempt from copyright under Slovenian law. Therefore, the requester should check which of the files were sourced from official documents and at least restore those!

In my view, the first part of rationale also covers coat of arms images sourced from elsewhere: even if they are derivatives (and not mere copies of versions found in municipial documents), they typically do not cross the threshold of originality and so do not attract separate copyright. If you accept this logic, then all the files in this discussion should be restored. That said, it is of course a better policy to gradually replace them with versions directly sourced from official documents, and even better if redrawn in vector format (so quality and fidelity are improved). But that is no justification to leave the files deleted in the meantime. -- Miha (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that all municipal coats of arms are copyright exempt in Slovenia. For example, this page cites the Municipality of Grosuplje as the copyright holder. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there are solid sources to claim that. Article 9 of the ZASP (Copyright and Related Rights Act) lists official legislative, administrative and judicial texts among non-protected creations (i.e. not covered by ordinary copyright). A study, commissioned by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency and co-authored by the Institute for Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, explains that although ZASP uses the term official texts, in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes to, official texts—explicitly including drawings of the state coat of arms, municipal coats of arms, flags, traffic-sign drawings, urban plans, and the anthem (see section 2.1.2 Nejasnost pojma uradna besedila, pp. 27–28).

While it's true that some municipalities (as in your example) present themselves as copyright holders, this mostly reflects a widespread misunderstanding of basic copyright principles. Many people — including public officials — are generally un(der)educated about copyright issues and often use “copyright” loosely when they actually mean that it is legally protected by special rules. Again, such claims do not override the copyright status of the works. -- Miha (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "in practice the category extends to materials published as part of, or as annexes". This would mean that only those municipal coats of arms "that have been published in the Official Gazette (Uradni list Republike Slovenije) or elsewhere as annexes to municipal ordinances" qualify as copyright exempt. --TadejM ^(t/p) 13:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, so we at least agree that the municipal coats of arms, which are sourced from official sources are not protected by copyright.

I checked https://web.archive.org/web/20091208063825/http://public.carnet.hr/fame/hrvat/si-obc.html and this already concerns many deleted coat of arms. On the first page alone, I found that most of the files were indeed sourced from official acts, including:

• Ajdovscina
• Beltinci
• Benedikt
• Bistrica ob Sotli
• Bled
• Bloke
• Bohinj

@TadejM Please, go through the remaining files and undelete those coming from official acts.

As for the other files, I still believe they are also unproblematic. In most cases, they likely come from official acts through intermediaries, but this is not the key issue. What matters is the official nature of the symbol, not its intermediate source. To clarify, any faithful depiction (which was as far as I can remember the case for all deleted files) of a coat of arms does not meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Since these symbols are not original designs, they do not qualify for copyright. -- Miha (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

And actually, other coat of arms can be easily sourced from official sources. Redirects can be made to resolve any deadlinks caused by this deletion. --Miha (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Images could be undeleted if directly taken from an official document (ordinance, see e.g. Vrhnika) but not if the official document contains only a blazon. It will take time to check all of them. Regarding the threshold, these images are quite original and at least some have been designed by a professional company (Heraldika d.o.o); I'm not certain why they would fall below a TOO. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really see a problem here. If you look again at the study I cited above, it is clear that once a coat of arms is part of an official document (including annexes to ordinances), it falls under the category of official texts within the meaning of Article 9 ZASP. That means two things: (1) they are not subject to ordinary copyright, and (2) this applies regardless of whether the drawing was created in-house or commissioned from a third party. The study itself explicitly references Copyright and Related Rights Act with a commentary by Trampuž, Oman and Zupančič. I am trying to obtain a copy of that commentary, which should clear up any remaining doubt on this point.

As for your Vrhnika example. The act you are citing above is no longer in force. The updated Odlok o grbu in zastavi Občine Vrhnika (13.2.02) removes any ambiguity: Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati (the coat of arms and flag cannot be copyright-protected) and that Izvirnike grba in zastave občine Vrhnika v vseh oblikah hrani Občinska uprava občine Vrhnika (the originals in all forms are kept by the municipal administration). In legal terms, that is equivalent to annex publication. Under ZDIJZ, the official source file can be requested directly from the authority and freely reused.

And even if the earlier act with the poor-quality scan were still valid, that still would not magically make faithful reproductions reach TOO. If the emblem is prescribed and published in an official act (as it is), then any accurate reproduction is non-copyright under ZASP and cannot be treated otherwise. Period. -- Miha (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What the actual ordinance really says about Vrhnika is that "Grba in zastave občine Vrhnika se ne sme avtorsko zavarovati [po drugih osebah] brez dovoljenja občine" (the coat of arms and flag must not be copyright-protected [by other parties] without a permission of the municipality). In any case, as the image of the coat of arms was previously published in the Official Gazette, it is copyright-exempt. A similar clause is contained in the ordinance issued by the Municipality of Preddvor: "avtorske pravice si pridrži občina" (Copyright is retained by the municipality).[1] --TadejM ^(t/p) 09:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I am going through the list of deleted images and will undelete those that are exact images copied from official publications. For example, File:Trbovlje.png is an exact copy from https://www.e-obcina.si/vsebina/uradni-vestnik-zasavja-st-112015. --TadejM ^(t/p) 10:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now undeleted some as per the above. --TadejM ^(t/p) 17:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Miha (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.

Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).

I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín.jpg

The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either

Also:

• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored).jpg
• File:Konstantín Chernenko - Tapa Diario Clarín (restored 2).jpg

The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].

Ping @Turkmenistan and @Ur Nan123 for discussion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have.
I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson ? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@Thuresson country of origin - you mean USSR / Russia? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it can be Boris Yurchenko who has worked for AP. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Boris Yurchenko (Q23901745) died in 2010 so his works are not public domain in Russia. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

But if they were produced for AP and not first published in Russia, that's irrelevant. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

We need to know if it was published in Soviet Union (we know it was in USA). Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Anna Eynard-Lullin Bern.jpg

This file was initially flagged at Commons_talk:AI-generated_media#Possible_AI-generated_images with User:MHM55 being concerned that all of User:Beeckfrau's images (mostly outdoor photos of statues) were AI generated. It was then put up for DR, and deleted.

MHM55's concerns about the file are that the timestamp is wrong, that the bust is known to be on display in Geneva yet the filename contains the word "Bern", and that the size of the books is "not realistic".

The DR discussed whether the image might be AI generated: two users said it was "clearly AI-generated" and "clearly a fake image", only singling out "details in the lower part of the statue which do not exist" (although the nature of these details wasn't stated). Other users, including one who said they'd "seen a lot of AI-generated images" (and myself, I've also seen and deleted a lot of this on Commons), didn't think it looked like AI at all. I also don't think that any of Beeckfrau's other images look AI-generated, and MHM55 didn't give any further reasons for thinking so.

Unless there is some giveaway clue that the Anna Eynard-Lullin image was generated by AI, I think the concerns can be explained by Omphalographer's theory that the bust could be a replica. This would resolve the questions of why it was in Bern instead of Geneva and was of an unexpected size. But it could also just be that the filename is misleading (the uploader forgot which library they took it in, or meant something else by the word "Bern") and the reference books on this Geneva Library shelf are unexpectedly larger or smaller than one might think.

Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images of this bust or this person on the internet, Commons would benefit from hosting one if the image is genuine. I don't think we had enough discussion to be able to decide that it was definitely a fake. Belbury (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose

1. A very similar, but not identical, bust appears here with ARR.
2. All of a random sample of similar images from this uploader show EXIF with Camera=Oppo. This has no useful EXIF.
3. Contrary to "Since there don't seem to be any other freely-licenced images ... of this person on the internet", we have Category:Anna Eynard-Lullin with 21 files including paintings, photographs, and sculpture. We do not have an image of this bust.

I therefore think it very likely that this is an AI image based on the bust at (1). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

My mistake on other images of Eynard-Lullin! That makes this less important.

The similar bust was mentioned in the DR and does seem to be the only other reference image to compare it to online. From memory the bust is identical (including the crack across it), the texture of her clothing looks a little different (which may be the lighting; its contours appeared identical) and the pedestal had been swapped out for a different one. From my understanding of AI image editing, if you asked a current model to redraw the same bust but on a bookshelf with different lighting and a different pedestal, other alterations would creep in - and you would have to manually apply other filters to the output, to give the appearance of a pixelised low-light camera image. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

After further examination of both images under high magnification, I am almost certain that the two photographs discussed above are the same bust. There is a small defect just above where the fold in the cloth that goes down from left to right hits the fold that surrounds the bust. That appears in both images. The subject image shows significant pixelization typical of AI work and, of course, the subject image is missing most of its base. Since the uploader has a history of uploading AI work, I think we must close this as not done and I will do so unless someone can provide a good reason not to do that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the user actually has any history of uploading AI content. The only discussion I'm aware of is the discussion at the AI media talk page where User:MHM55 said they were putting all of User:Beeckfrau's statue images into Category:Unconfirmed likely AI-generated images to check, apparently largely because of their "impossible" timestamps. I checked the images and removed them from the category as they didn't appear to be AI generated, and MHM55 said OK. I am not a specialist in this regard. Belbury (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg

This file was deleted following the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bekasi.svg. However, around the same period there were several related CfD discussions initiated by the same nominator, using the same rationale, and concerning the same type of content. In those cases the subjects were the flags of Indonesian provinces, cities, and regencies. The outcomes of those discussions were clear keeps, please look up the following CfDs for the details:

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictional flags of Indonesia
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fictional flags of West Java

The reasoning applied in those discussions is directly relevant here. The file for Flag of Bekasi Regency appears to have slipped through without wider community attention, as no editors participated in that DR, which then resulted in an unchallenged deletion.

Several subsequent DR discussions on similar files have also been closed as keep, following the precedent set in the cases above, such as:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banyumas.png
2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kebumen.png
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Nabire.png
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Banggai.png
5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sidoarjo.png
6. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Jayawijaya.png
7. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Bulungan.png
8. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Merauke.png
9. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Landak.png
10. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Manokwari.png
11. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Mamuju.png
12. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Kulon Progo.png
13. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Regency Flag of Sleman.png

Given the consistent consensus to keep comparable files, and the lack of community input in the Flag of Bekasi Regency discussion, the same reasoning should apply here. I request that the file be restored in line with the established precedent. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Republic of Montmartre.svg

I don't really understand the situation, because the deletion notice gave a reason that didn't reflect reality, as it wasn't even a photo. No one informed me when or why it was removed, but if there's a problem, I'll explain it. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't keep flags or other images from so-called micronations that have no significance in the real world. Also note that the named source page has a copyright notice and does not have a free license so in any event this is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward The flag in file is two triangles and three stripes, so it doesn't qualify for protection as something too simple. I put that tag there. The Republic of Montmartre is an old organization from Paris and has an article on the French wiki [5]. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Моя жизнь.jpg

Also:

• File:⋆˚࿔ п⦻ ♫зⒶбI☻Iтb-т❸б☹ 𝜗𝜚˚⋆.jpg
• File:«размышления».jpg
• File:GoLd∑n.jpg
• File:Алтарь.png
• File:Диптих 02.jpg
• File:SO STUPID.png

The image of the painting was removed without any reason or explanation.

--Pokichhh (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The rationale provided (but regrettably not posted to your talkpage) was "Content created as advertisement (G10) / Personal photo by non-contributors (F10))". --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I am a contributor and I have previously made contributions that are not related to me, I am not a random user who came out of nowhere and is promoting himself, I am simply posting my images that could potentially be used by someone. I have been making contributions for over two years now. The decision to make this remains unclear to me, this is not empty spam.

--Pokichhh (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep art created by people who are not themselves notable. Commons is not a web host for amateur artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Ahmad Vaezi.jpg

This was discussed in Deletion requests/File:Ahmad Vaezi.jpg. It's not possible to verify whether the Template:Tasnim attribution is correct, therefore I provided the earliest source available here [6] which cites Template:Attribution only license at the bottom. But User:The Squirrel Conspiracy thinks something is missing here, as per User_talk:The_Squirrel_Conspiracy#Undeletion_request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpander (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The footer on the cited page reads, in machine translation, "All special rights are the news agency, and the use of content is unobstructed by mentioning the source." While that might be read as an attribution required license, it is not irrevocable. We require licenses that are explicitly irrevocable. Also, "special rights" raises a question. It may be that they intend to allow readers to use the image but not Commons freely licensing it to others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Silverton Builders Merchants Logo.jpg

Reason: I am an authorised representative of Silverton Builders Merchants Limited, the copyright holder of this logo. I confirm that this file is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. The logo was incorrectly identified as advertising during the initial upload. Please restore the file under this free license. Silvertonbm (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright is not an issue with this all text logo, but since there doesn't seem to be a WP article, I see no reason to keep this logo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Info Q137242964 was deleted for not meeting the notability policy. Thuresson (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Sony, Rx1, The full-frame sensor.jpg

Hello administrator, I want to say this image is Sony's Rx1, the full-frame sensor.jpg is a free-to-use Pixabay image which was released on December 19, 2019. The allegation about on speed copyVio says "this image is released in 2018", which is fully lie Jaredryandloneria (talk)

---

 Not done: not currently deleted. Please also note that the speedy DR says the image is POST-2018, so from AFTER 2018. Pixabay changed their license on January 9, 2019; files uploaded there after that license change are not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Reopened since the image is now deleted. Clearly uploaded after the date Pixabay changed the license. Jaredryandloneria, please be careful with your accusations. Although we do occasionally make mistakes, lies are very rare here and accusing an Editor of lying, as you do above, is a violation of our rules. Also note that "this image is released in 2018" does not actually appear in the speedy deletion, so your accusation has no basis. The speedy says, correctly, that the image was uploaded to Pixabay on December 19, 2019. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Luai Ehsan.png to undelete

Hello WikiCommons Team,

I would like to request the deletion of this image because I am the person depicted in the picture, and I am the original uploader/rights holder. Please proceed with removing it from the platform.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luaiehsan24 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Found online at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luai-Ehsan and scope. Only used to promote themselves. Gbawden (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose ??? User:Luaiehsan24, you seem to be requesting the deletion of an image that has already been deleted because it is a copyright violation and a personal image of a non-contributor. Why did you make this request? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Info Luai Ehsan (Q137167014) is up for deletion at Wikidata. Thuresson (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:ngkcd.ncd.png

Hello, I would like to request the undeletion of File:ngkcd.ncd.png.

This image is the official emblem of the Navians General Knowledge Club at Noubahini College Dhaka. The emblem has been in continuous use for over a decade and is physically installed on the wall of our college building as the club’s permanent symbol.

The logo was originally created by a former club president around 6 years ago but it has since become the institutional emblem of the club. All succeeding club generations and administrations—including myself, as the current president—continue to use this emblem for our identity, publications, posters and official pages.

I do not have direct contact with the original designer but the emblem is clearly owned, used and publicly displayed by the institution as its official symbol.

I kindly request restoration of the file so it can be used under:

Non-free logo (fair use) for identification of the club in its article, OR Any appropriate licensing category for long-standing institutional emblems.

I am happy to provide any additional details if needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

— Shafiqshameul (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Being in use by an organization does not mean it is owned by the organization. Though this looks like it may include additional clip art, and may be a remixing rather than an original work. So the person you reference may not themselves fully own it as their own creation. GMG^talk 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. It looks very possible that the logo's creator used material from other sources. In any event policy requires that the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. Note that the VRT volunteer should require that the club has a formal transfer of copyright from the person who created it. Being "used and publicly displayed by the institution as its official symbol" does not prove that the club has the right to do that, much less that the club has the right to freely license it to others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Files by Malke Tartakovski

Please undelete

• File:Una_rosa..._un_pensamiento.jpg
• File:Sed_por_Ser.jpg
• File:Palabras_en_silencio.jpg
• File:Feria_de_conciencias_1982.jpg
• File:Llollita_de_frijoles.webp
• File:Querencias.jpg
• File:Alazar.jpg
• File:Jaula_de_Agua.jpg
• File:Calendario_con_365_prosas_poéticas.jpg
• File:Cage_of_Water.jpg
• File:Quiero_morir_cantando.jpg
• File:Neshamot_(almas)_2016.jpg
• File:Limadura_de_silencios.jpg
• File:Malke_Tartakovski.jpg

We have permission from the heir per Ticket:2025120410011303.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Prata_for_Allseating.jpg

Also:

• File:Ftrackreview-image-6.jpg
• File:MicraAmbulance_by_Carl_Gustav_Magnusson.tif
• File:Teknion_Conflux.tif
• File:Ivy_Umbrella_Stand.jpg

I have power of attorney from the owner which has been submitted via email. --Plastix11 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 11 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:File:Professor_Helena_Teede_AM,_PhD,_MBBS,_FRACP,_FRANZCOG,_FRCOG,_FAAHMS.jpg.jpg

Don't delete this image of Helena Teede. It is a public image of Helena Teede that is used in the International PCOs Gudieline - page 6 https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/3379521/Evidence-Based-Guidelines-2023.pdf It is also used on social media posts from Monash University and Monash Health. https://www.google.com/search?q=monash+university+helena+teede&rlz=1C5GCEM_enAU1162AU1162&oq=monash+university+helena+teede&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MggIARAAGBYYHjINCAIQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAMQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTIGCAYQRRg8MgYIBxBFGDzSAQg3NDcwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=r6Bh8cKnKponbM&vssid=_BA46abH9Gba8seMP19_IqQ8_51 --ATrHamilton (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)