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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

I would argue that the arguments in the DR for deletion were flawed:

• User:LeftRightRightLeft's nomination "We need a fair use image 'stead!" seems to imply that the file page on the English Wikipedia should include something like w:Template:Non-free album cover instead of {{YouTube CC-BY}}.
• User:Heylenny first argued that the photograph was not a work for hire belonging to the record label, but rather an independently authored work requiring special licensing. Heylenny later argued that, because the cover contains the text "All rights reserved," that it can never be relicensed (unlike many files officially relicensed via COM:VRT).

The CC BY licenses on Warner Music New Zealand's YouTube channel (an official subsidiary of Warner Music Group) have been found many times to be legitimate (see COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, COM:DR/File:Ed Sheeran – Shivers sample.ogg and COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa – Dua Lipa cover art.png). Thus, this file should be reinstated. (As I said in the DR, if the point was to question the validity of the YouTube channel's CC BY licenses, that should be discussed at COM:VP or COM:VPC [or perhaps even w:WP:RFC/Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!] but not in a DR nor a UR.) JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The files that should be reviewed are:

* File:Coat of arm of Hrastnik.png File:Coat of arms of Šenčur.png File:Coat of arm of Žiri.png File:Coat of arms of Železniki.png File:Coat of Arms of Hrpelje-Kozina.png File:Coat of arm Izola.png File:Coat of arms of Škofja Loka.png File:Coat of arm of Žirovnica.png File:Coat of arms of Tržič.png File:Coat of arm of Preddvor.png File:Coat of arms of Radovljica.png File:Coat of arm of Kostanjevica na Krki.png File:Trbovlje.png File:Grad CoA.png File:Gornja radgona grb.png File:Gornji Petrovci.png File:Črenšovci CoA.png File:Podčetrtek.gif File:Mirnagrb.png File:Coat of arms of Bovec.png File:Šoštanj.png File:Turnišče.png File:Ig.Grb.png File:Nazarje.png File:Lukovica.grb.png File:Rogašovci.png File:Coat of arms of Razkrižje.png File:Coat of arms of Metlika.png File:Ruše.png File:Škofljica.png File:Radenci.png File:Moravče.png File:Zavrč.png File:Trzin.png File:Lendava.grb.png File:Komenda.png File:Coat of arms of Idrija.png File:Žalec.png File:DobjeGrb.png File:Kostel.png File:Destrnik.png File:Coat of Arms of Sezana.png File:Starše.png File:Štore.png File:Braslovče.png File:Grb.Vojnik.png File:Gorišnica.png File:Kozje.png File:Kuzma.png File:Coat of arms of Cirkulane.png File:Cerknica.png File:Občina Križevci grb.png File:Coat of arms of Laško.png File:Polzela.png File:Šentilj.png File:Horjul.png File:Benedikt.png File:Apače.svg File:Miren-Kostanjevica.png File:Šalovci.png File:Coat of arms of Kidričevo.png File:Grb Občine Šentrupert splet.jpg File:Beltinci.png File:Kobarid.png File:Vipava.png File:Dobrepolje.png File:Cerkno.png File:Vransko.png File:Straža.png File:Ljutomer grb.png File:Coat of arms of Rogatec.png File:Poljčane.png File:Coat of arms of Dobrovnik.png File:Tabor.Grb.png File:Coat of arms of Žužemberk.png File:Ljubno.png File:Coat of arms of Grosuplje.png File:Hoče-Slivnica.png File:Pesnica.png File:Coat of arms of Osilnica.png File:Sveti Jurij.png File:Sveta Trojica v Slovenskih goricah.png File:Coat of arms of municipality of Ajdovščina.png File:Rogaška Slatina.png File:Slovenj Gradec grb.png File:Trnovska vas.png File:Sveta Ana.png File:Brda.png File:Coat of arms of Kungota.png File:Škocjan.png File:Coat of arms of Duplek.gif File:Dornava.png File:Solčava.png File:Vitanje.png File:Cankova.png File:Coat of arms of Prebold.png File:Hajdina.png File:Coat of arms of Dolenjske Toplice.png File:Mislinja.png File:Slovenska Bistrica.png File:Dravograd.png File:Dobrova-Polhov Gradec.png File:Dol pri Ljubljani.png File:Središče ob Dravi.png File:Šmartno ob Paki.png File:Grb.Muta.png File:Logatec.grb.png File:Coat of arms of Ribnica.png File:Vodice.grb.sl.png File:Bistrica ob Sotli.png File:Gornji Grad.svg File:Coat of arms of Litija.png File:Črna na Koroškem.png File:Medvode.png File:BreziceGRB.png File:Coat of arms of Ivančna Gorica.png File:Coat of arms of Mengeš.png File:Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png File:Šmarje pri Jelšah.png File:Coat of arms of Mirna Peč.png File:Vuzenica.png File:Domžale.png File:Kanal ob Soči.png File:Ribnica na Pohorju.png File:Velike Lašče.png File:Rečica ob Savinji.png File:Sveti Tomaž.png File:Šentjur pri Celju.png File:Renče-Vogrsko.png File:Podvelka.png File:Sevnica.png File:Ravne na Koroškem.png File:Juršinci.png File:Bloke.png File:Šempeter-Vrtojba.png File:Sodražica.png File:Pivka.Grb.png File:Mežica.png File:Sveti Andraž v Slovenskih goricah.png File:Coat of arms of Črnomelj (1992–2021).svg File:Log-Dragomer.wappen.png File:Vrhnika.png File:Šmartno pri Litiji.png File:Velika Polana.png File:Coa Koper.grb.png File:Coat of arms of Kamnik.png File:Krško.png

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

This image comes from the official portal *Mapa del Estado* (https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/), which belongs to the Argentina.gob.ar portal. In the "About" section of Argentina.gob.ar it is expressly indicated that the published content can be copied and redistributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, the same license through which I uploaded the images to Wikipedia Commons.

For this reason, I believe that the files do not violate any copyright regulations and I request that should be undeleted. Expressly the source and license are as follows:
- Source: https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ministerios/Jefatura-de-Gabinete-de-Ministros/48/detalle
- Portal licensing policy: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca
KmiKC16 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same case with these other portraits that I have uploaded, as I detail them below:

• File:Manuel Adorni - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Mariano Cúneo Libarona - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Federico Sturzenegger - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Luis Petri - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Sandra Pettovello - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Luis Caputo - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Patricia Bullrich - Retrato Oficial 2024.png
• File:Mario Lugones - Retrato Oficial 2024.png

KmiKC16 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have undeleted these files. Could someone speaking Spanish confirm that the license is valid please? If that is the case, they should be {{Licensereview}}. Yann (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support @Yann: per Yann, but i speak in Spanish but im not a licensereviewer (https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca) but in Spanish says:Por supuesto. Podés copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato y adaptarlo para cualquier propósito, incluso comercial, siempre que cumplas con los términos de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional. También podés compartir un trámite, una noticia o una página en tus redes sociales. La información de Argentina.gob.ar es pública, es de todos nosotros. (ENG:Of course. You can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and adapt it for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you comply with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY-4.0). You can also share a procedure, a news story, or a page on your social media. The information on Argentina.gob.ar is public; it belongs to all of us.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link https://www.argentina.gob.ar/acerca is for content from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ (the actual T&C is here https://www.argentina.gob.ar/terminos-y-condiciones). These images were taken from https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/, a different website. Günther Frager (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote either for or against this request, since I was the one who originally nominated the files for speedy deletion. However, to give my opinion: as Günther Frager mentioned, I requested deletion because the files were taken from mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar, which is not the official government website. Therefore, the CC-AR-ArgentinaGobAr license, nor any of the licenses listed in Category:License tags of Argentina, would apply as far as I am aware. Franco Brignone • Talkpage 11:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/ is an official service that depends on the Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros (under the national government) which content is part of what is published in Argentina.gob.ar, as seen at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/desregulacion/mapa-del-estado, I believe that it is reasonable to consider that it's content is covered by those policies. KmiKC16 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think gob.ar is not a government website? @Franco Brignone Bedivere (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere, "Which is not 'the' official government website." I never claimed it was not government-managed; it is a subdomain, not the main site. As Günther Frager pointed out in the comment below, even subdomains of the official site can operate under different licenses that may conflict with the free license stated on argentina.gob.ar. Assuming that every subdomain automatically has the same license requires more careful consideration, both for Argentina and for other countries with similar cases. This issue perhaps deserves a more detailed discussion, not necessarily in an undeletion request. As I mentioned, I do not believe a free license would apply, but that is just my reasoning when adding the deletion tag. Regards, Franco Brignone • Talkpage 06:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different webpages and they don't have the same content (one has photos the other does not). Besides assumptions are not real evidence Take a look at https://casarosada.gob.ar it has a slightly different license. It has a CC-BY 2.5 while https://argentina.gob.ar CC-BY 4.0. Even better, take a look at https://cursos.argentina.gob.ar/ that is a subdomain of https://argentina.gob.ar, it has an incompatible CC-BY-NC license! To avoid headaches we should stick to website with known licenses, argentina.gob.ar has plenty of material, e.g. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2024/04/francos_1.jpg (found at https://www.argentina.gob.ar/jefatura/) . Günther Frager (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Günther Frager you might have a fair point. Still, I believe these images are free to be copied and redistributed since we are talking about the official portraits of Argentinian ministers. I will search information to back this belief. However, as I do not possess that evidence now, you may delete these images. I will request another Undeletion if I find proof of what I am claiming. Regards. KmiKC16 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any more opinions about this? Yann (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the terms of Argentina.gob.ar apply to Mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar. This is because the "State map" is published as a sub-site of the Argentina.gob.ar website. The National Direction of Organizational Design linked in the Mapadelestado site is located at Argentina.gob.ar. Furthermore, jefatura.gob.ar redirects to Argentina.gob.ar. To me it is pretty clear the license does apply to this website. Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Argentina.gob.ar does contain official portraits, although slightly different to the ones at the Mapadelestado website. See for example: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/styles/cuadrada/public/2016/03/francos.jpg and https://mapadelestado.jefatura.gob.ar/back/imagenes/perfil/001.png Bedivere (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have requested a {{Licensereview}} of these files. Yann (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a user keen on flags, I suppose that File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted.

One of the reasons explaining why File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should not be deleted is that according to the original statement of this file, the design then was derived from that from Vexilla Mundi, and Vexilla Mundi allows the designs there to be used in non-commercial websites.

In this page is the description of this file before deletion: https://web.archive.org/web/20250828195257/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg

Moreover, I object to Safes007's reason to delete this flag. It seems to me that once a flag is released into the public domain, minor changes to it do not infringe on the original version's copyright; what's more, the flag of the Cocos Islands has been used in emoji icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9BBWMJ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, from my point of view, File:Flag_of_the_Cocos_(Keeling)_Islands.svg should be restored.

@9BBWMJ: Do you believe that this flag is in the public domain, and if so, why? Thuresson (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page describing the Australian Symbols booklet has a Copyright and Disclaimer page with a CC-BY 4.0 International license. YIIBUGRADIO (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page you cite contains an Australian Symbols booklet which clearly states "This work is copyright. Apart from use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet". So no, this shouldn't be restored. Bedivere (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given @Jameslwoodward's comment above, what do you think of this one? I closed this as not done but then I saw your comment in the other thread thinking otherwise. Bedivere (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with the Capitol Territory Flag is ambiguous. We have the booklet with a clear and explicit copyright notice and the web site describing the booklet in detail including an image of the flag. The web site has a CC-BY license. It is a fixed rule of legal interpretation that ambiguity may always be construed against the writer, so on that basis we can accept the image.

That doesn't help with Cocos(Keeling) because the flag is described but not pictured on the web site, so the only illustration we have of the flag is clearly marked with a copyright notice. The note above about Vexilla Mundi covers only NC uses, which, of course, we do not permit.

A final consideration is that the Australian Government paid A$20 million to free the Aboriginal Peoples flag from copyright, so it seems that they want the flags to be free. Not withstanding that, however, I think we are stuck with a clear copyright notice on the only source we have. This is probably a bureaucratic screwup, so could probably be fixed by someone here interested enough in the situation to write a letter. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my part, I would prefer to delete only when we copy an actual drawing from elsewhere, not when someone makes their own drawing/SVG based on the description. If we are copying all the specific curves and lines, that is an issue to me. Much like heraldry (and Commons:Coats of arms), often it's just the particular drawing which has a copyright, not the overall idea of the flag. There could be some gray areas, but when it comes to governmental flags at least, which often has a description or drawing in the law (which is PD-EdictGov in the US), I would more limit it to the particular drawing. We should not copying particular drawings from elsewhere, but I don't think it means we can't have any flag at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Do you suggest that any of these versions of Aboriginal flag may be free in Australia? Ankry (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private flags (which the aboriginal flag was) would be a bit different as there is likely not a written description to start with. Particularly in Australia, where the threshold is so exceedingly low. Official flags, unless they are copying specific lines or another drawing, probably OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Carl, generally I would agree with you, but perhaps Australia is a special case. Using your argument, anyone could have made a copy (on paper or cloth) of the Aboriginal Flag from the time of its creation until 2022 when the government spent A$20 million to acquire the copyright. I think we did not keep any copies of that flag until 2022. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia definitely has a low threshold of originality so any private flag, I'd say stay away. This flag is meant to be an official government flag. If not slavishly copying lines, I'd probably think those are OK. Maybe it would still be considered Crown Copyright -- Australia does have a really low threshold, so yes I would tread carefully. Just don't think that copyright can cover any drawing somewhat matching a description (though the aboriginal flag would be far, far below the TOO in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete it now Dndrnmn1-2Years (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image has educational purpose as per discussion with nominator for deletion: User talk:Belbury#Deleted image help 2 -- Jtneill - Talk 09:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:De minimis#Guidelines, images such File:4X-AHC Martin Harrison.jpg, File:AVBWU688_at_Jordan,_West_Kowloon_Station_(20190320170144).jpg and File:Dioikitirio 1.jpg can be considered de minimis, so the bus images may should considered de minimis because the advertisement on the bus are unavoidable part of the subject and illustrate the bus as a whole. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG where it focus more on the photographs hanging in museum that keeped because the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity. 6D (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Commons:Deletion requests/File:01739jfQuirino Highway Santa Monica Novaliches Proper Quezon Cityfvf 03.jpg which the ad occupies the upper half of the back side of the bus: too much to be "incidental" and the image specifically targets this side of the bus, this one is the advertisement only cover lower half of the bus and it also show front side of the bus, so even if the advertisement removed on image, this image can still useful to illustrate the bus right side. 6D (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else thinks blurring the advertisement still makes it a useful photo, I'll undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are already plenty of other photos in Category:Buses in Chengdu. Thuresson (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only image for right side of Guangtong CAT6123CRBEVT before deletion, so it has some value even blurring the ad. 6D (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== [[File:Student using GenAI to undelete.jpg]] ==

File:Student using GenAI.jpg was originally uploaded by to illustrate the Wikiversity resource AI use, cognitive load, and motivation (see Figure 1). The image was intended for educational purpose as part of this open educational resource. Could the file please be restored?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Belbury#Deleted_image_help_2 --U3239124 (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is freedom of panorama in Mexico for both outdoor and indoor public places so the image must be undeleted inmediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogeGamer2015MZT (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything under COM:FOP Mexico about churches as public places. Although maybe as "places that are open to the public with free admission'? Abzeronow (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The church has free admission and photography is allowed DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film is 128 years old, due to its very old age, it is public domain worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogeGamer2015MZT (talk • contribs) 01:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is NOT public domain worldwide, and it won't be public domain in its origin country of UK until 2030 because the director died in 1959.  Oppose Abzeronow (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the edification of the requestor, an even older film en:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat only just entered the public domain in France this year. Life plus 70 can result in 1890s works still being copyrighted when the authors lived until the late 1950s and beyond (Alice Guy's films won't be public domain in France until 2039 and Picasso's works won't be PD in France until 2044) Abzeronow (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it means that a 1896 film from Alice Guy will remain copyrighted even after 142 years? That seems extremely lame, especially considering that anything made before 1900 should be public heritage DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We on Commons didn't write copyright laws, we just try to follow them to keep this a free licensed project. (yes, sometimes the laws can be counterintuitive and frustrating). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This picture summarizes the cognitive model used by the theory of mental symmetry. It was previously uploaded by a friend of mine and deleted for copyright violation. I am the primary researcher for the theory of mental symmetry. When I attempted to upload this diagram using an email from the mentalsymmetry.com website I ran into the previous deletion notice. As the owner of this diagram, I wish to place a copy of it on Wikimedia for others to be able to use if I am given credit and any changes are noted.

Thank you.

--Mentalsymmetry (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Previously published content needs a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this file was recently deleted for reasons that I have already explained. See the deletion request and my response here. I have even fixed the problems with the file, yet it was still deleted.

Best regards --Tinkaer1991 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no evidence that the source map is under a free license. Yann (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

こちらの画像はサイトに公開されておりますが､私が作成したサイトに公開しています。 ですから全て私が作成した作品です。 ですので著作権侵害ではありませんので削除取り消し手続きを申請します。 名古屋グランパスファン (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

こちらの画像はサイトに公開されておりますが､私が作成したサイトに公開しています。 ですから全て私が作成した作品です。 ですので著作権侵害ではありませんので削除取り消し手続きを申請します。 名古屋グランパスファン (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images have NO bad quality and there are covered by freedom of panorama in Mexico because this is a public space — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogeGamer2015MZT (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Both photos are blurry. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DogeGamer2015MZT. Thuresson (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted because the author was thought to be unknown so that it would be in copyright. The photo was taken by Gustav Ouviere of Marseille as shown on its display at the Arles Mediatheque https://calment.fandom.com/wiki/Jeanne_Calment?file=JeanneFromFassin.PNG . Ouviere died in 1943 see https://www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/ressources/repertoire-artistes-personnalites/gustave-ouviere-37675 . It therefore came into the public domain in 2013. Weburbia (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Published before 1923, entered French public domain in 2014. Abzeronow (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mugshot could be covered by {{PD-CzechGov}}, see also files in Category:Mug shots of people of the Czech Republic--Trade (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or Jim was correct and mug shots are not considered "official works" since it is not a text. Abzeronow (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]