Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
99 copyvios • 7 duplicates • 24 adverts • 22 selfies • 38 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

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]
Most of the videos fall under Template:PD-South Korea-organization, but some appear to have been filmed in the U.S. and produced by U.S. personnel or networks. It would be better if there were more detailed descriptions or links to the sources. There are no direct links available for now.--Namoroka (talk) 02:03, 29 August 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]

Note that Carl Lindberg confirmed this was not a copyright registration  REAL 💬 ⬆   04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: to check if his opinion is that I should undelete this. Abzeronow (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The records starting with "V" and then numbers are "recorded documents" -- they are not registrations or renewals. It is simply a statement sent to the Copyright Office and dutifully published. There is no verification of any claims. It's usually to note a transfer of copyright and the like. So, those records above are not themselves evidence of anything, other than they think or hope that copyright exists. I have no idea if there were copyright notices on the magazine or not, or if there are other, valid registrations. But, those two cited records are not registrations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alyemda Airlines Boeing 707 stamp Democratic Yemen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted because it is "a graphic art work and is not a government document" but it falls under PD per COM:Yemen as works of applied art or photography produced more than 25 years ago or before 2002 are PD in here. There is no reason for it to be deleted 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe that this is public domain in USA? Thuresson (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The URAA date for Yemen is 2008 and the stamp is from 1981 so it seems OK with 25-year term. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because it was published in Yemen and its copyright had expired here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The 25 year term which Abo Yeman mentions is for applied arts -- that is, painting on furniture and the like. Stamps are fine art which have a fifty year after publication term for anonymous works, so this stamp will be under copyright until 1/1/2032 in Yemen and 1/1/2077 in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where does it say that in COM:Yemen? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Yemeni copyright law define what an applied art is? A stamp might be covered under it, but it might not be based on the available information. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The law on the Protection of Copyrights and Related Rights of Yemen lists "Works of art" as "all branches of art" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only question here is whether the stamp is fine art or applied art, because fine art has a term of fifty years pms and applied art has a term of only twenty-five years from creation. The only appearance of the word "applied" in the Yemeni copyright law is in Article 35:

The financial rights of applied arts and photography shall be protected for twenty five years starting from the beginning of the Gregorian year following the achievement of the work.

Since "applied" is not defined in the document, we must use the generally accepted use of the term. Applied art is decoration on useful objects. Nowhere are stamps treated as applied art -- they are copyrighted with all other fine art. Therefore this stamp will be under copyright in Yemen until 1/1/2032 and in the USA until 1/1/2077. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case can we remove "Graphic design" from en:w:Applied_arts because that is what makes everyone think it applies  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Oxford says, "Graphic design is the art or skill of combining text and pictures in advertisements, magazines, or books." A graphic designer creates ads or pages in printed works. Therefore graphic design is applied art. That is distinct from fine arts -- painting and sculpture. This stamp is a painting of an airplane and mountains behind it. While it is not an Old Master, it gets the same copyright treatment as any oil painting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any oil painting, as in a work of art? That is already defined in the document as oil paintings definitely falls under "all branches of art" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct -- not Applied Art, and therefore having a fifty year pms term, not twenty-five years from creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry because I don’t want this to be repetitive but where does it say that in that law? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen: where does it say what in that law? - Jmabel ! talk

Old photographs from the Dominican Republic

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Porfirio_Rubirosa_Ariza.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mirabal_sisters.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dominican_Republic_baseball_history.jpg

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_General_de_San_Juan

The current term of photographs in the Dominican Republic is 50 years and these were all deleted because they were taken after 1946. However until 2000 the term was 10 years from publication (Law No. 32-86 on Copyright art. 26). It was increased retroactively but photographs published before 1986 were out of copyright by 1996. Note I have never seen any of these.  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball one should be good to go. The other ones are tricky because no definite year is asserted. Bedivere (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rubirosa died in 1965, so that one should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mirabal sisters were killed in 1960, so that one should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For General de San Juan, the pictures with Trujillo are presumably OK on the same basis, but I suggest handling the others either one-by-one or in batches that clearly will stand or fall together. There are numerous pictures and we'd have to show that the DR was the relevant place of publication for each, not a country with longer protection. Also, at least some (e.g. File:Toma de posesión de D. Joaquín Balaguer en 1986.jpg) are presumably going to run afoul of URAA even with just a 10-year copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carla Gia, Visual Artist.jpg

I am the creator/rights holder of this image and it was deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I request undeletion because it is a work I own and can freely license under the terms of Commons. The image is relevant for illustrating my work as a visual artist and complies with Wikimedia Commons’ licensing policies. Thank you for considering this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla gia (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:Carla Gia, Visual Artist.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted as a personal file by a non-contributor, not as a licensing issue. @Carla gia: can you either indicate notability for yourself that puts you within Commons's scope, or show where you've made substantive contributions to a Wikimedia project? All I see offhand is creating a Wikidata item about yourself and uploading examples of your own art. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your message and clarification. I understand the concern.
I am an emerging visual artist and have recently started to participate more actively in the professional art world. My intention with the uploads was not personal promotion, but to contribute freely licensed images of my own work, which might be useful for illustrating articles related to contemporary art or my practice if relevant.
I will look into providing reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability (such as press coverage, exhibitions, or catalogues) so that the material can better fit within Commons’s scope. If needed, I am also open to guidance on how to contribute more substantively to Wikimedia projects beyond uploading my own work.
Thank you for pointing this out, and I appreciate your advice on how I can align better with Commons’s requirements.
Best regards,
Carla Gia 88.22.159.61 20:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Commons is much looser than the various language Wikipedias about writing about yourself (because people are so often the best source of media files about themselves), the issue of being sufficiently notable to be in scope is similar to the Wikipedias. Commons has a relatively low threshold of notability, but when things near the margin of that look to us like self-promotion, we give a lot less slack than when a person with nothing to gain decides it's worth documenting something. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wikimedia Commons has specific scope. The photo may be in scope if:
  1. there is an article in another Wikimedia service that it is intended to be used in
  2. it is educationally useful
  3. it is intended to be used on a userpage of a significant Wikimedia contributor.
I see no evidence that any of the conditions is met. Anything else is out of scope, see COM:NOTHOST.
Also, if the author is identifiable and not an anonymous Wikimedia contributor, we do not accept {{Own}}-based licensing. So an unpublished selfie of a notable person cannot be licensed on wiki and most likely requires also a VRT permission. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Note also that the subject's comments about the reasons for uploading:
"The image is relevant for illustrating my work as a visual artist"
"to contribute freely licensed images of my own work, which might be useful for illustrating articles"
are both wrong here, because this is a self portrait, not an example of her art.
I suggest she come back with these when she has an article about herself on WP, which must, of course, be written by an independent third party. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:indian_spy_picture.jpg

Dear sir/mam I want to request u that to don't delete this file it is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B kiari (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You declared that you made this photo on January 1, 1970. Can you prove that (your authorship and the creation date)?
  2. Which article the photo is intended to be used in?
Ankry (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sia – Reasonable Woman cover art.png

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]

File:TakehikoOkabe.jpg

Deleted file: File:TakehikoOkabe.jpg Date of deletion: 16 September 2025, 04:26 (UTC) Reason for deletion: No license since 8 September 2025 Deleted by: Krd

Undeletion request: This is a self-portrait photograph taken by Mr. Takehiko Okabe himself for use in his Wikipedia biography. The file was deleted due to "No license" but this was a legitimate self-authored work that should have been properly licensed.

Copyright status:

  • Photographer: Takehiko Okabe
  • Subject: Takehiko Okabe (same person)
  • Copyright holder: Takehiko Okabe
  • Intended license: CC BY-SA 4.0
  • Own work: Yes, complete self-authored work (self-portrait)

Why this should be undeleted:

  1. This is a legitimate self-portrait with clear copyright ownership
  2. Photographer, subject, and copyright holder are the same person
  3. The deletion reason "No license" can be immediately resolved
  4. No third-party rights conflicts (no portrait or publicity rights issues)
  5. High educational value for Wikipedia biography article
  6. Author is willing to provide under proper free license (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Resolution of deletion issue: The deletion was due to missing license information, not copyright violation. As this is a self-portrait by the subject himself, I can immediately provide:

  • Proper {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license template
  • Complete file description with all required information
  • Appropriate categorization as self-portrait
  • Clear documentation of photographer = subject status

Evidence of legitimacy:

  • This is a self-portrait (selfie) taken by Mr. Takehiko Okabe himself
  • No third-party photographer involved
  • No model release required (photographer = subject)
  • Clear intention for Wikipedia educational use
  • Complete compliance with Commons licensing requirements

Educational importance: This image serves important encyclopedic purposes for the Wikipedia article about Takehiko Okabe, a notable Japanese musician and recipient of Austrian national decoration. The image provides visual identification for readers and enhances the article's credibility.

Post-restoration commitment: Upon restoration, I will immediately provide:

  • Complete and accurate file description page
  • Proper license declaration using {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
  • Appropriate categorization including
  • Clear indication of self-portrait status
  • Full compliance with all Commons requirements

Request rationale: This undeletion request addresses a technical issue (missing license) rather than a fundamental copyright problem. Since this is a self-portrait by the subject himself, all copyright issues can be immediately resolved with proper licensing.

I understand Commons policies regarding copyright and licensing, and I am committed to full compliance with community guidelines.

-- SilentForge (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Two reasons:

  1. I very much doubt that this is a self portrait. It looks like he is behind a lectern. It is a tiny image, probably cropped from a much larger one. A self portrait would be a much larger image.
  2. Whether a self portrait or not, Commons policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license directly to VRT. This is evidently not the uploader/requester SilentForge. Note also that the template {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} applies only to images where the uploader is the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardiff Solidarity for Palestine protest, 25 November 2023 142309 (redacted).jpg

File was deleted despite consensus that the deletion rationale (F3. Derivative work of non-free content, per COM:FOP UK) did not apply, as COM:DM UK was more appropriate. — OwenBlacker (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. DRs are not votes, so the existence of a "consensus" is irrelevant. All of the arguments contributing to the "consensus" are incorrect. The deleting Admin is required to consider such arguments, but must apply the law and Commons rules as they see them.

The discussion of FoP is also irrelevant as the subject poster is handheld. The individual photographs have copyrights, but the poster as a whole -- the arrangement of the individual photographs -- also has a copyright. The argument, "The sign was clearly made to be displayed widely without any requirement for copyright protection and was displayed publicly in such a manner" is also invalid. Displaying a copyrighted work publicly does not change copyright status unless FoP applies. The text, top and bottom, probably has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support While FoP clearly does not apply (mainly because the display is not permanent), De minimis may be applicable, IMO. The main goal to present the image are not the individual photos but the number of them. The photo would be usable even if the individual copyrighted personal photos are blured. Also, I think, that the text at the bottom is informative rather than expressive and cannot be copyrighted as a literary work. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xiaohan.svg

My own work Xiaohan.svg has been deleted, so I want to apply to recover this file

Description An individual logo
Date Nov 18 2024
Source Made by me and my friend, copyleft(GPL 3.0 licence)
Author yuhan2680(myself)
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 GPL 3.0 licence
Other versions no other version
  • Personally created, unused logos are most likely out of Wikimedia Commons scope per COM:NOTHOST. While for logos used outside Commons, we need a written free license permission via email using VRT or an evidence of the logo license from the site that uses it. Logos not used in iother Wikimedia projects may be out of scope anyway. Ankry (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micha_Ende_Portrait_Argentina_2011.png

File:Micha_Ende_Portrait_Argentina_2011.png

I kindly request the undeletion of this file. A full copyright release authorization has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the copyright holder Micha Ende on 16/09/2025 (Brazilian time). Please see the pending VRT ticket for details and confirmation. Thank you very much! SatProDev (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terminal C, ORD Airport, April122011.jpg

Made a mistake with licensing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymrat16 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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