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.

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Yann: According to gnu.org, the "MIT License" is really a confusing concept, as MIT (if it's indeed an abbr. of Massachusetts Institute of Technology) does published not only one license, they have Expat license, X11 license and/or MIT Zero license (though gnu.org also recommend to rename it to "Expat Zero license"), so which type of "MIT license" did the uploader mean to? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is not really the license. It is whether it applies to the whole package or not. Apparently I am in minority here, but I think that in the evidence of the contrary, it does. Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per 999Real, this request just looks like someone who says to license some files to be "CC BY(-SA)" but didn't specific which version of CC BY(-SA), or says to license as "BSD license" without how many clauses (4-clause, 3-clause, ... 0-clause) they used, unclear version details held me from supporting. I would also recommend to restart reviewing of files using {{MIT}} as license tag (or one of tags for multi-licensed). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is not what I said or relevant. If you click the LICENSE file in GitHub it shows the exact license code (This is always how you put license in GitHub. It usually has the full license in plain text). Anyway I don't know why this is still open  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   10:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Js13kgames.png Js13kGames Logo

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has

"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."

That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@999real: This is not the same logo. Feel free to upload it under CC0 providing that source. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Direct restoring, but  Support re-uploading a correctly licensed one, per Ankry, previous one might have differently designed shapes. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files in Category:Die Partei (Reutlingen)

About 30 files deleted as of arbitrary accusations, with no understandable comment Dulliman (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them arbitrary. And I understood the comments and close. Jim concluded these were out of scope posters. Abzeronow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dulliman Das Argument out of scope verstehst Du? Die Löschung ist begründet. Wikipedia ist kein Ort für politische Kampagnen. – Do you understand the argument ‘out of scope’? The deletion is justified. Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigns. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dulliman: What should be taken into account for artistic works by non notable authors: educational value of the works by themselves, whether they were used elsewhere, quality of the reproduction, etc. There is a difference between educational works (e.g. File:Jupiter diagram.svg), works used during some notable events (e.g. File:Mai 1968. (Sans texte) - maquette d'affiche ? - non identifié - btv1b9018450b.jpg), and vanity works without any educational use. Yann (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

These appear to be cropped images from an anonymous UK group shot from 1895 and the another group shot circa 1900 when these players were on the team. The consensus was to keep, they were deleted, then restored, then apparently deleted again. They should be restored. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Hosting them here with false authorship / licensing is pointless. As nobody wanted to fix this information, their undeletion is also pointless. Following the recent restoration, neither the user requesting the restoration nor any of the users supporting the action did so for several months. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I rather support keeping these files. However the license, the date, the source, and the author should have been fixed after undeletion, and they weren't. If neither the uploader or you are able to do it, why requesting undeletion again? Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• You have to notify me if you want me to fix them. I only noticed them undeleted and then deleted again when I posted this. I will fix them if they are undeleted. But someone has to message me that they are available to edit again. --RAN (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• You were notified, i.e. . Yann (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  In this case, I'd love to inform @Krd: , many of those files were re-deleted by this one citing e.g. "No license since 9 October 2024", if they don't against above rationale, I would support restoration again. I'd suggest no conflicts between adminships on such trival questions of licensing tags. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Yuhan Logo (ENG).svg

Below TOO in South Korea--Trade (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:碎-order.gif

In 2015, I uploaded animations illustrating the correct stroke orders for various CJKV characters. 7 of these were hit with deletion requests, of which 6 ultimately were kept (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). There is no reason that File:碎-order.gif should have been treated any differently. I thus come to request its undeletion, to rectify this inconsistency. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)