Latest comment: 1 month ago19 comments4 people in discussion
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.
@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.
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
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.
@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've got access to the aforementioned commentary on copyright act. The exceprt (pp. 54-55) below discusses how the term "official text" should be interpreted and extended to include other categories.
Pojem besedila - Po vzoru Bernske konvencije zakon govori o »besedilih«, čeprav se v okviru uradnih pristojnosti in oblastvenih upravičenj pogosto objavljajo tudi druge kategorije avtorskih del, in sicer kot del uradnega besedila, kot njegova priloga ali pa samostojno (npr. dela urbanizma, kanografije, zbirke, baze podatkov). Tudi za take kategorije lahko velja, da so uradnega značaja in da je njihovo poslanstvo v čim večjem razširjanju. Z vidika njihovega namena se torej ne razlikujejo od zakonov, odločb ali drugih uradnih besedil. Temu ustrezno pojma »besedila« iz člena 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP ni mogoče tolmačiti samo dobesedno, temveč s primerno razširitvijo na druge kategorije del. Pogoj je, da gre za uradne kategorije (z vsemi značilnostmi tega pojma) ter da se taka interpretacija opravi glede na vse okoliščine primera in previdno. V dvomu bo merodajen predvsem uradni značaj dela: uravnavanja družbenih razmerij s to kategorijo avtorskega dela se ne da doseči le z uradno objavo, temveč tudi z nadaljnjim (za vsakogar) neoviranim in poljubnim reproduciranjem (Ulmer, § 30, II, 2; Schricker/Karzettberger, § 5, tč. 42).
I marked parts relavant for our discussion. Later on they discuss several examples and as already established by the aformentioned study, this also includes coat of arms. You can see that the intention of the exemption is to ensure that, among others official symbols, can be freely used and reproduced in order to fulfill their function. This supports my claim that it is the official nature of the coat of arms that matters, not where it is pusblished (in Uradni list or independently). Therefore the coat of arms from municipial sites should be fine. -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have examined the first dozen of these including two that have been restored. None of them are sourced from a municipality and none of them has a correct license. Note that while CoA created by a government may not have a copyright as discussed in great detail above, those created by persons other than the government have copyrights both in Slovenia and in the USA. I see no reason why my closure of the DR was incorrect. Those files that have been restored should be deleted and this should be closed as Not Done. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago11 comments3 people in discussion
The reason for deletion was: I don't think the original photo is in the public domain in the United States (which is required on Commons) even if it is in the public domain in Argentina. I doubt the photo even belongs to that Argentinian newspaper, so I doubt it is in the public domain in Argentina either
The photo should be PD in USA. It was published in some American newspapers during that time without author and copyright notice. For example, The Boston Globe [2] on 14 February 1984, The Evening News [3] on 13 February 1984, Standard-Freeholder on 24 December 1984 [4].
This is a photo from Associated Press who publish this photo at their web site with the following credit: "Soviet Politburo member Konstantin Chernenko is seen, 1983. (AP Photo)". The location is said to be Moscow, Russia. (ap.org). Thuresson (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
AP images published between 1964 and 1977 in a newspaper that did not include a copyright notice for the image are in the public domain. By at least 1981 AP began including copyright notices on some photos.' But this one doesn't have. I guess it should be {{PD-US-1978-89}}Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oppose It is not possible to say for sure that this photo is public domain in the country of origin. It is probably not by an Associated Press photographer since the photographer is said to be anonymous. Thuresson (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The text in the centre is not complex enough to be above TOO;
COM:TOO Germany contains a clear example of a logo being denied protections regardless of it having stylised text
It is my understanding, based on articles such as this, that Monster energy drink were denied protection in German courts for their brand's font/typeface in 2024/2025. This also shows that stylised fonts/typeface do not push a logo above TOO in Germany. The Monster font is arguably more complex/stylised than the one featured in File:Logo WFV04.png.
I am Malaya Kumar Biswal M, Director of Grahaa Space, and I am the original copyright holder of this image. I hold all necessary rights to publish and distribute this file and am willing to release it under a free license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons (such as CC BY-SA 4.0).
If the deletion was due to licensing or permission concerns, I can:
Re-upload the file with a correct free license declaration, and
Provide formal permission via OTRS / VRTS if required.
The image is intended for encyclopedic use to illustrate Grahaa Space’s SOLARAS mission team, and it does not violate copyright, privacy, or promotional content policies.
Kindly advise on the appropriate steps needed to proceed with restoration.
Sorry, the french word "maquette" appearing in several of these file names literally means "model". The Destinus drones indeed may be the actual devices, but I tend to expect that a producer of military drones would rather exhibit life-size models of his creations instead of the actual machines for security purposes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
A full size model should look like the real thing, but we don't know what's inside. Also I note that this is highly finished and all stainless steel, which seems odd for a piece that will be used once. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: le nom du fichier dit carrément que c'est une maquette, comment une maquette peut être le vrai engin?!
Additional question: there's an article, fr:Zéphyr (fusée) providing a range for the size of the actual rocket engine. I do not recall if there were any references in the image from which one could deduce the size of the depicted device, but an engine made for a 19m rocket is quite probably larger than comfortable to fit into an exhibition stand. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@User:Grand-Duc Le nom du fichier est une erreur : pour rappel, c'est moi qui l'ai donné. Il y a aussi une autre erreur de copier coller avec "sur son pas de tir". Quant à la taille du moteur (7 moteur sur un disque de 1,5 m de diamètre), elle est cohérente. Artvill (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Honnêtement, ce n'est pas ce que j'appellerais une maquette. C'est peut-être un prototype, ou une (re)création à la même échelle, mais cela a probablement une utilité et n'a pas un nouveau droit d'auteur. Yann (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Now, I'd like to hear the opinion of @Clindberg in regards to possible IP rights and COM:MODELS. It's about an exhibit shown at the Salon du Bourget (en:Paris Air Show). That exhibit is meant to display the propulsive subassembly of a en:small-lift launch vehicle (the fr:Zéphyr (fusée)); Artvill clarified that the device is probably at an 1:1 scale. At the moment, we don't know for sure whether it's a non-functional model, a prototype or an actual working rocket part. What are your thoughts about the image's ability to get hosted here? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion
According to its list of attributions, the WP25 Anthem video for Wikipedia's 25h anniversary celebration incorporates the deleted file File:67 dance.webm. The deletion log for that file states “The background song is not under a free license”.
Since the WP25 Anthem video has its own sound track, hopefully only non-violating video from the deleted file was used, and no audio.
However, the sole attribution in the list of attributions is the link to that file (all other fields in that entry are empty). So with the file deleted, there is no more valid form of attribution, creating a licence violation (unless the original was public domain).
It would be particularly embarrassing for such a licence violation to exist in Wikimedia's own anthem video for Wikipedia's 25th anniversary celebration. Therefore it seems important to restore this file promptly, minus the offending audio.
To the undeletion admin, if needed, I am willing to help re-uploading the video without the audio, then the original version can be revdeled. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
The subject piece is a three second video of a boy juggling air, at about 0:27 into the WP25 video. I would just add a note in the long list of attributions that it was deleted for copyvio audio, but that the video was licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
That is insufficient. CC-BY-SA requires attribution, not just a mention of the licence. Unfortunately, no information except a link was in the credits for this file. We do not know who the author is, so we cannot attribute them. So, without having access to the original, the legally mandated attribution is impossible. – McDutchie (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I recorded the video myself, I told my friend to do the 6-7 thing and I'd upload it to Wikipedia. Not only was he happy with it but it became an inside joke with my friends. I was a little devastated when I found out it was deleted but focusing on school I really couldn't do anything. RowanJ LP (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is very helpful to at least know that you are the author of File:67 dance.webm. Under what license did you originally upload the video, please? With that information we can at least amend the list of attributions and resolve some of the immediate problem. If you could re-upload it without audio, that would be even better. – McDutchie (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Kadı: It's not a "duplicate", look closer. The Nastaliq fonts, Latin fonts, and Cyrillic fonts have been completely changed and revamped for added consistency and visual appeal. I really would have preferred to simply overwrite the existing file with my current image, but for some reason this is no longer permitted. I was affiliated with and helped the person who made the original image you reinstated (Muhafiz-e-Pakistan), and he has since been banned. Either restore the file I made or help me overwrite the existing file. Kindly, ThatDohDude (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments5 people in discussion
The subject is the Canadian National Vimy Memorial, designed by Walter Seymour Allward (d. 1955). The memorial was constructed in France by the government of Canada following a bilateral treaty, and was unveiled in 1936. The files deleted as part of numerous Vimy Memorial deletion requests were primarily on the basis that:
The memorial is a copyrighted work of sculpture, and
It is located in France, which does not provide a general Freedom of Panorama for such works.
I note that:
None of the original deletion discussions or closing rationales identified a specific United States copyright expiry date for the memorial;
The “Undelete in 2032” categorization was added subsequently and does not reflect a date established through deletion discussion;
As of 1 January 2026, Allward’s works have entered the public domain in France (life + 70 years); the memorial is firmly in the public domain in France and by Canada.
With respect to the United States, mere public display does not in itself constitute “publication”. Obviously, photographs and postcards of the memorial exist (inclusive of stamps and pre-paid postcards issued by France in 1936), and it would have been widely photographed after its unveiling, but there is no documented distribution of copies to the public in the United States with the author’s consent. Architectural works are protected only if the building was constructed on or after 1 December 1990. Buildings constructed before that date are not protected in the United States as architectural works. In respect to the precautionary principle, I have searched the US Copyright Office Public Records Portal, the Virtual Card Catalog (as this is a pre-1978 subject), and the URAA Notices of Intent to Enforce mentions of “Vimy Memorial” as a published work and I could not find any entry. If the work is treated as unpublished for US term purposes, its copyright term would follow the author’s life plus 70 years.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Vimy Memorial is a sculpture, not an architectural work. Yes, it's now public domain in France but the sculpture is still under US copyright until 2032 (1936 is the widely agreed date of "publication"). Abzeronow (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't agree that the date of publication in the United States is widely agreed. It is clear for other jurisdictions, most notably France, Canada and the United Kingdom, but unclear for the United States. Certainly, no demonstrated publication or distribution in the United States in 1936 let alone one with the author’s consent. There does appear to be a basis to consider this an unpublished work for US term purposes.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support First published 1920-1921 in plans and models. The sculptor later created half sized models between 1925-1930 in his studio, which were published (the definition of published under the 1909 Copyright Act was making copies, which the sculptor literally did). The large scale version is an *exact* slavish copy of the models, which has no new copyright in the US. See File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg for a side by side comparison of the half sized model with the final product. Also [5] -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 19:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support With respect to the US, public display that makes no attempt to prevent copying, at least pre-1978, would be publication. I'm not sure just making copies was enough, but with the photographs at the time, and distribution of plans and models, it seems pretty clear they were published pre-1930 in US terms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Maybe I'm blind, but if it's the exact same shot, just from the movie instead of the trailer, that won't affect the copyright (for that specific still image, mind you). -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Per COM:AZ, an encyclopedia is not a government work so the copyright is presumably owned collectively by the 25 editors (M. Abdullaev et al) of this 1982 volume. Thuresson (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was in the process of uploading this file to Wikimedia Commons and simply stopped getting responses on how to continue and the file was deleted. Please let me know what I can do to restart the process or what needs to be done in order to get this image uploaded.
Latest comment: 21 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The file was deleted due to CSD G10 (files and pages created as advertisements). But it's a logo of a real estate agent and needed for the wikidata entry. So it's a logo, not advertisement and generally needed. Can we please undelete it? I've seen a lot of logos on the wikimedia page.
--Jgensheimer (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am appeal the deletion of this file and request its restoration. This deletion was improper and not in accordance with site policies. The image was created through a meticulous process of guiding AI with specific taxonomic data to provide a visual representation of the Mazama, a species with very few free-license visual resources.
Originality & Licensing: I have demonstrated that this is an original creation under my guidance, meeting all Wikimedia Commons copyright criteria for user-generated AI content. While not a photograph, the image serves as an informative biological illustration. Much like historical or hand-drawn illustrations hosted on Commons, it provides essential visual context for a rare species.
To ensure absolute clarity that this is not a photograph, I propose renaming the file to: "File:Mazama_chunyi_AI_reconstruction.png". מנחם.אל (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support undeletion and reopening the DR. It is not up to the Commons community to decide which image is used in Wikipedia and nobody in hewiki complained that this image was present in a Wikipedia article for almost two months. Images used in other projects are in scope. Of course, renaming and/or fixing the description is the right way. Ankry (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, This is my own photo from 1992. It is some practical joke to erase it from commons under copyright violation if I
am the owner the photo is of myself and put it there myself.
Oppose Images published elsewhere cannot be licensed as Own work. VRT permission is needed if their initial publication was not under a free license. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2026 (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".
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
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)
Support 
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.){kind=link}
Not done promotional images are out of scope. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Info Wikidata entry Q137703987 has been deleted anyway. Thuresson (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Done: PD now. --Abzeronow (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
