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
64 copyvios • 714 duplicates • 1 advert • 15 selfies • 44 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]
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:David Rohde deep state in America.png

I think that the image does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection because it consists only of simple geometric shapes and texts and also because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. It is simply two arrows crossed and few texts! Super ninja2 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The arrangement of the various constituent parts is certainly copyrighted expression that is well above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree. These are just words stacked on top of each other, arranged according to their standard positions (which is common-property information) on the Y and X-axis. It’s essentially like math: functional, not artistic. And since it’s neither artistic nor original, anyone has the right to arrange them that way on a graph. Super ninja2 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books are "just words" arranged in a particular way. "Arranged according to their standard position" does not make sense to me -- whose "standard position"? The arrangement represents the point of view of the author. Several words appear in two places.
Also, if this does not represent original and useful creative thinking, why did you upload it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:URIEL BRG name.ogg

— This file was created by me, yes, but it’s me pronouncing the name of the artist URIEL BRG. It’s educational and the file was used in Wikipedia. This file shouldn’t be deleted, I licensed it to be used for educational purposes here on Wikipedia a year ago. JoshuaArmitage (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the user who tagged it for deletion has been coming after me, and this isn’t the first time that they deleted an important piece of Wikipedia which I uploaded. JoshuaArmitage (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: Any comment? This is not a personal photo. Ankry (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that it is not a photo, but a personal file, I will change the deletion reason accordingly. AFAIK it is/was unused (just like File:Uriel signature.svg and File:URIEL BRG Headshot (FEB2024).png), it may have been used on enwiki and/or wikidata, but the pages on which it was used are deleted and the uploader is blocked there. All is part of a campaign to promote Uriel Bromberg or one of their stage names. I don't see a reason to restore the file, more likely the two files I mention should be deleted as well. --Lymantria (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So how did you just request the signature to be deleted too if it was approved for not containing copyright holders?? The signature is not a personal photo and was uploaded in 2022. The deleted page was deleted by you on Wikidata using the argument of not notable person, but Uriel Marshall is a known brazilian artist with notability in Brazil. Those files were uploaded years ago, did not happen right now, and was approved by administrators. You might be an admin on Wikidata and blocked me from using it but you are not an admin here. There’s no promotion for Uriel here, his page on Wikidata only covered personal details such as date of birth, place of birth and real full name. How was it promotion? JoshuaArmitage (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshuaArmitage: Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope. We do not host signatures that are not used in existing Wikipedia/Wikidata pages nor have historic value. Ankry (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I still see an unused personal file, pronouncing a name of a person who has not made it to an article @enwiki or an item @wikidata. --Lymantria (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dr. Abdul Rahim Nevin

Hello, I would like to know the reason as why this page was deleted? As per reviewer comments bellow, It states that I used "(Inappropriate use of user pages (U3):" - Can you please explain what is Inappropriate and what is the suggested solution?


08:55, 11 August 2025 Herbythyme talk contribs deleted page User:Anevin2000 (Inappropriate use of user pages (U3): content was: "{{Infobox person | name = Prof. Dr. Abdul Rahim Nevin | native_name = پروفیسور داکتر عبدالرحیم نوین | native_name_lang = fa | image = Prof_Abdul_Rahim_Nevin_official_portrait.jpg | image_size = 250px | caption = Official government portrait of Prof. Dr. Abdul Rahim Nevin | birth_date = {{Birth...", and the only contributor was "[[Special:Contributions/Anev...) (thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anevin2000 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Active contributing users are allowed and encouraged to create user pages that tell us a little about them and show a few photographs. The key words there are "active contributing". Commons is not Facebook and we do not allow new users to treat as if we were. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:The First Group company logo.png

I am requesting undeletion of this logo. I believe it was deleted because it lacked a non-free use rationale. I will immediately add a complete rationale that explains how its use in the article 'The First Group' meets all of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.(Thrashermaniac (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

You may upload it locally on Wikipedia (such as on English WIkipedia, but not here on Wikimedia Commons since we don't accept COM:Fair use. However, I'm not sure that logo is above COM:TOO... what are the rules in United Arab Emirates? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice! I have now submitted a request to upload the logo to the English Wikipedia, as you suggested. Thrashermaniac (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Unless the ToO in the UAE is extremely low, I think it is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Град Источно Сарајево панорама.jpg

Подносимо захтјев да се не обрише фотографија File:Град Источно Сарајево панорама.jpg будућ да је то изворна фотографија начињена од стране Туристичке организације Града те је идеална за панорамски приказ града и постављање исте као прве уводне слике странице о граду. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelena2007 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, please note that falsely claiming {{Own}} on an image that you have taken from the web is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. It also makes it difficult to believe anything you say here.

As you say, the image came from https://www.citajfilter.com/2023/07/поносних-30-година-града-источно-сараје/?script=la which has a clear copyright notice "©citajfilter.com 2019-2024" and no free license. There are many images on the web that would be good to have available on Commons, but almost all of them are copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Kemerdekaan Republik Indonesia Ke-49.webp

I haven't had a chance to see the deletion evaluation page, and I assume the file is in the public domain, as it was published by the Indonesian government. Thank you.--Muhamad Izzul Fiqih (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The upload was not an official logo as issued by the Indonesian government (as mentioned on your user talk). That is easily seen from the watermark visible in the file. See archived source. --Lymantria (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fotografia de DJ Oliveira (2000).png

Hi,

The file I'm requesting undeletion is Fotografia de DJ Oliveira (2000).png.

I'm the grandaughter and rightful copyright holder of the corresponding image, and I was the uploader and licensor of the corresponding image file. The image was uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA-4.0) license, which clearly reflects my intention to make this image freely available under the terms required by the Commons.

I would like to clarify the following points: 1) Photograph uploaded: The uploaded image was taken by me. There are no third-party photographers involved who could claim copyright over the digital reproduction. 2) Intent of public access and preservation: The upload is part of an effort to document and preserve the legacy of an important regional artist, and to provide open cultural access to his work through an educational and non-commercial platform. 3) Proper licensing: As the rights holder, I have freely released the image under a valid free license (CC-BY-SA 4.0), fully aware of its implications and in compliance with Commons policies.

In light of the above, I respectfully request a review of the deletion decision and, if applicable, guidance on the next steps to restore and maintain the file in good standing.

Best regards, --Luíza Oliveira Gomes (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question I'm not sure I understand. Is the digital upload an original digital image taken by you in 2000 or it a copy or scan of an original B&W image taken by someone else in 2000? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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