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: 3 timestamps • 0 reasons • 6 subpages) • 0 malformed
57 copyvios • 193 duplicates • 42 selfies • 93 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

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

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

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

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

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

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

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

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

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

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg

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

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

File:Kathryn Joosten in 2011.jpg

Good day,

I would like to request the undeletion of File:Kathryn Joosten in 2011.jpg.

The original image, as posted on Flickr on June 14, 2011, is licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). It appears that the previous uploader may have selected the wrong copyright license when uploading the file, which likely led to its deletion.

Since the Flickr source clearly indicates that the image is available for commercial use and modifications under CC BY 2.0, I believe it does not infringe on copyright and should therefore be eligible for restoration.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegskin (talk • contribs) 10:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-Beegskin (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beegskin: No. The image has been deleted due to Flickrwashing allegations against the account owner. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users. We generally require licenses from such users to be confirmed in the VRT process. If you find the allegations incorrect, you may need to discuss them in COM:AN. Ankry (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:RS Group plc logo.jpg

Hi,please restore this logo ,it’s a {{PD-textlogo}}+{{Trademark}} ,the logo consists a text "BR" (around of the text is a red) ,it’s below the new TOO (Threshold of Originality) in UK,this logo was deleted due to old ToO (skill and labour),but TOO in UK says:OK for some simple logos. The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom used to be very low. After the 2023 decision of the Court of Appeal in THJ v Sheridan, the test is "more demanding" than the prior one. Now, works that are not "author’s own intellectual creation" are not covered by copyright. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/12#COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision for some discussion about this test. (see specially cases Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-07#File:ITV2 logo 2022.svg and File:ITV3 logo 2022.svg) (google translator) AbchyZa22 17:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Envoltorio de alfajor Capitán del Espacio triple de chocolate y dulce de leche.jpg

Considero que la imagen debería ser conservada. Los alfajores son una comida típica y popular de América Latina, principalmente de Argentina y Uruguay. Forman parte de su cultura desde hace más de un siglo. Además, no sólo no se observan ® en la imagen que ha eliminado, sino que en Wikimedia Commons existen varias imágenes de envoltorios https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=wrapper+chocolate&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noked (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Envoltorio de alfajor Coco Choco de coco y dulce de leche.jpg

Considero que la imagen debería ser conservada. Los alfajores son una comida típica y popular de América Latina, principalmente de Argentina y Uruguay. Forman parte de su cultura desde hace más de un siglo. Además, no sólo no se observan ® en la imagen que ha eliminado, sino que en Wikimedia Commons existen varias imágenes de envoltorios https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=wrapper+chocolate&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

File:Envoltorio de alfajor Guaimallén triple de chocolate blanco y dulce de membrillo.jpg

Considero que la imagen debería ser conservada. Los alfajores son una comida típica y popular de América Latina, principalmente de Argentina y Uruguay. Forman parte de su cultura desde hace más de un siglo. Además, no sólo no se observan ® en la imagen que ha eliminado, sino que en Wikimedia Commons existen varias imágenes de envoltorios https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=wrapper+chocolate&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

File:TYT PULAU PINANG.jpg

Kindly need your help to undelete this page as I need to use the picture to update certain wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamil Shazwan (talk • contribs) 06:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zecicindela tekapoensis.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ AP12320 (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122905942 AP12320 (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the site cited above, the image is clearly marked "CC-BY-NC", which is not acceptable for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: © Jessica Chen, some rights reserved (CC-BY-NC). --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bracha Gaoni.jpg

The subject of the photo is my mother. The photo was taken by me in a family event in 2010 (Bat Mitzva of my daughter). I have more photos of her from the same event where it can be seen it was taken at the same time. The fact that it also appears on psychoanalysis.org.il is because I provided it to them (and maybe to other organizations that asked for her photo in order to honor her memory), and not the other way around. Please restore the file. Tami GF (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We see many images taken from the web without a free license and posted here. That is particularly true of very small images such as this one that have no camera EXIF. Therefore policy requires that when an image has appeared elsewhere, the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. Alternately, you may upload the image at full camera resolution with full EXIF using the same file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rep. Mike Cameron.jpg

The cited reason for deletion was a lack of license. On Monday, August 25, 2025, I contacted Betsy Theroux, the Director of the Georgia House of Representative Media Services, which takes and manages these headshots. She confirmed that headshots of Representatives are released into the public domain, and free for use on wikipedia/wikimedia.

Because the owner of these images has provided the necessary consent for this photo to be uploaded and used for informational and educational purposes, I am requesting it be un-deleted. Jcgaylor (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcgaylor: For us to be able to host the image, we need that confirmation in writing somewhere that other people can verify. EIther Betsy Theroux can email the permission to Commons following the instructions at COM:VRT, or you can point to somewhere on the website that the image was taken from that states that photos of congresspeople are in the public domain. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Copyright © 2025 The Georgia General Assembly. Unless there is permission, this should not be restored. Bedivere (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, permission has been granted... Jcgaylor (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of that. Is there a valid permission ticket? Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy has already provided a much more informative and helpful answer to your protest. I look forward to renewing this request once the Georgia House Media Services team has sent the required email. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Jcgaylor has indicated that the copyright holder will send an email to VRT. In that case, this can be closed, as once the VRT permission is processed, the file will be undeleted by the person processing the ticket. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that the House Media Services webpages states that these headshots are "available for public use" and are "provided . . . as a public service . . ." (https://www.house.ga.gov/MEDIASERVICES/en-US/HousePhoto.aspx#:~:text=Once%20the%20high%20resolution%20photo,is%20available%20for%20public%20use.) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcgaylor (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rob Clifton Headshot, 2025.jpg

This image, along with every other official headshot of a Georgia House of Representatives member, is "available for public use" according to its author, the Georgia House of Representatives Media Services Office.

Prior to this photo's wrongful deletion, it was uploaded to the page for Representative Rob Clifton, fulfilling an educational and public information purpose. This use is consistent with the guidelines set out by the author (i.e. a public use). It should be un-deleted, along with every other official headshot taken by the Georgia House of Representative Media Services Office that has been wrongfully and vindictively deleted by @Bedivere. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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