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)

@Yann As Ankry suggested below, that free-licensed one isn't really "same as the deleted one here", probably just re-upload it, please? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 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)

In this case the whole category seems to be "out of scope" ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Election_posters_in_Germany_by_party Dulliman (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This party doesn't have an article on Wikipedia? Yann (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No answer. If the party had a page, this would be in scope. I am not 100% sure in this case, but even small parties with minor political impacts usually have a page. Yann (talk) 18:47, 20 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)

• We need a way to automate the task, rather than cut and paste the same license template 118 times. --RAN (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Yuhan Logo (ENG).svg

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

 Oppose The tree is not incidentally included. Per COM:DM South Korea. Thuresson (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment While the tree is not incidentally included per COM:DM South Korea, the object stated above may be fall with another PD-license, that is either {{PD-South Korea-anon}} (in case of creator of the work is unknown) or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (in case of a work created on behalf of organization). As stated of two templates, According to Article 40, 41, and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known (unless the creator of the logo was publicly known) and works created on behalf of organization enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013) In other words, organizational, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea. In case of Yuhan willow tree logo, it was exist in various incarnations since the creation of the company in 1926, and the current incarnation of the logo, with circle included, was presumably created in 1956. 1959 advertisement and calendar of 1962 also included the current incarnation of the logo as well. I also believe that the actual creator of Yuhan Willow tree logo is unknown (apply {{PD-South Korea-anon}}), and if was publicly known, its copyright might be expired as well. Assuming that the current incarnation of the logo was created in 1956, it may be expired on 1 January 1987 (before its copyright term was extended to 50 years according to new law in July of next year, but is non-retroactive to works already expired). So, i suggest the file will be restored with licensing changed. Yayan550 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Uh oh, you deleted file after merge, see COM:TOO South Korea YehudaHubert (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Waylon Jennings Songbird.jpg

The link was valid when uploaded, and has since become more widely available. There was no reason for deletion as it was properly sourced at the time of creation and there are now dozens of sources to back up the image/artwork’s validity as well as the rightful owners of said artwork in Black Country Rock Media/Son of Jessi & Thirty Tigers.

• Select examples of new sources:

- https://waylonshop.com/products/waylon-jennings-songbird-cd-pre-order

- https://themusicuniverse.com/three-newly-compiled-waylon-jennings-albums-to-be-released/

- https://musicrow.com/2025/06/previously-unheard-waylon-jennings-collection-songbird-to-be-released-in-october/ — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.246.155.6 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The three sites named above have:

1. © 2025. All rights reserved.
2. Copyright © 2013-2025 The Music Universe. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable law.
3. © 2025 Music Row Enterprises, LLC

None of them have a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jerry henderson portrait.gif

This painting was made public when it left the custody of the artist circa 1965. {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. "For copyright purposes, artwork is published when the original work, or a copy of it, is distributed to the public by selling, renting, leasing, lending, or otherwise transferring ownership of that copy of the work." See: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists --RAN (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that there was a sale of the artwork or that the public had an oppertunity to make copies before 1977? Abzeronow (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The legal requirement is "selling, renting, leasing, lending", there is no demand for a sale, and we have never asked anyone to produce a sales receipt before. It doesn't matter how the painting ended up in the home of the sitter's family, when it leaves the custody of the creator by "selling, renting, leasing, lending" it is "made public". If a copyright is intended then copyright formalities must be followed, including copyright registration and adding a copyright symbol next to the name of the copyright holder and the year. We house over 10,000 paintings that were created in the USA, and I have not seen a demand for a sales receipt for any of those images. --RAN (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Convair 580 turbo prop airplane.gif

While not appearing in a newspaper or magazine this image was made public when it was transferred from the photographer to the subject. See previous rulings discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. {{PD-US-no notice}}. The rules applied up to 1977 for including a copyright symbol and up to 1989 for copyright registration. --RAN (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convair 580 turbo prop airplane.gif, uploader says it was never published. A family photograph is more likely to be a limited publication anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• What he was saying was that it never appeared in a newspaper or a magazine, which is the non-legal understanding of published. USA case law has an image "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator. Here the photographer is unknown but the image ended up in a family album. The copyright office explains: "For copyright purposes, artwork is published when the original work, or a copy of it, is distributed to the public by selling, renting, leasing, lending, or otherwise transferring ownership of that copy of the work." See: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists --RAN (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Прошу восстановить удаленные фотографии

1. Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский принимает императора Иосифа в здании Посольства России в Вене и знакомит его с ходом строительства Храма Св. Нколая Чудотворца. 4 ноября 1894 г. Худ. Марина Воронцова-Русева. Варна. 2024. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского посольству РФ в Вене
   File:Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский принимает императора Иосифа в здании Посольства России в Вене.jpg
2. Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский объявляет архимандриту Иосифу Сокольскому о его удалении из Болгарии. 1861 г. Худ. Валентин Дончевский. 2023. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского музею-дворцу Врана в Софии
   File:Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский объявляет архимандриту Иосифу Сокольскому о его удалении из Болгарии. 1861.jpg
3. Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г. Справа налево: князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский, Александр-паша Каратеодори и министр, председатель Государственного совета Али-паша. Худ. Никола Русев. 2019. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторские копии — посольству РФ в Софии и Музею-панораме в Плевне
   File:Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора.jpg
4. Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский принимает болгарскую делегацию во главе с митрополитом Климентом (Друмевым) в Санкт-Петербурге. 1896 г. Худ. Никола Русев. 2020. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский принимает болгарскую делегацию во главе с митрополитом Климентом в Санкт-Петербурге. 1896.jpg
5. Подписание российско-китайского секретного договора о союзе и постройке КВЖД. Сидят, слева направо: князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский, С. Ю. Витте, посол Китая Ли Хунчжан. Худ. Марина Варенцова-Русева. 2021. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Подписание российско-китайского секретного договора о союзе и постройке КВЖД.jpg
6. Переговоры министра иностранных дел А. Б. Лобанова-Ростовского с первым официальным послом Кореи в России Мин Ёнхваном. 1896 г. Худ. Марина Варенцова-Русева. 2022. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Переговоры министра иностранных дел А. Б. Лобанова-Ростовского с первым официальным послом Кореи в России Мин Ёнхваном. 1896.jpg
7. Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г. Османский министр иностранных дел Александр-паша Каратеодори (слева) и князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский. Худ. Марина Русева. Варна. 2019. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского Историческому музею в Софии.
   File:Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г.jpg

НинаГМ (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, we'd need VRT permission from Ruseva to host their artwork here. Abzeronow (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Эти фотографии передал князь Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский, я их размещаю по его просьбе. Но я загрузила их на его страницу, а надо на страницу его предка. Какую надо было выбрать лицензию я не знаю. НинаГМ (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alex Spade: , a Russian speaker. We need COM:VRT/ru to sort out matter of copyright. Prince Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky may have commissioned the artworks, but typically copyrights vest with the artists (Valentin Donchevsky, Nikola Rusev and Marina Ruseva). I have been reading your replies through Google Translate. Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский заказал эти картины, оплатил и подарил их посольству РФ России в Вене, в Софии, МИД РФ. Он является их правообладателем. НинаГМ (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

так же добавлю, что эти фотографии есть в интернете НинаГМ (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose For modern paintings we need free license permissions from the artists as Abzeronow said above. Also "Own work" claims for works made by someone else are serious violations of Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Эти фотографии передал князь Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский, я их размещаю по его просьбе. Но я загрузила их на его страницу, а надо на страницу его предка. Какую надо было выбрать лицензию я не знаю. НинаГМ (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский заказал эти картины, оплатил их и подарил посольству РФ в Вене, в Софии, Министерству иностранных дел РФ. Он является их правообладателем. НинаГМ (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

акже добавлю, что эти фотографии есть в интернете НинаГМ (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Ankry, I see you have RU-1, which is one more than I have. Could you sort out the file names from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%93%D0%9C. I don't read Cyrillic, so they are just a blur for me. Thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I think, this will be as above. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:GRAND CANCUN INTERNATIONAL ECO PLATFORM, aerial view.jpg

moved from Commons:Deletion requests/File:GRAND CANCUN INTERNATIONAL ECO PLATFORM, aerial view.jpg Achim55 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. My name is John Michael Silvers Godoy. I am an illustrator and 3d modeler. I am the artist who created the image deletd. it is mine, I spent almost 300 hours making it. I even have a 1,5 gigabyte folder of all the material used to make it. Please remove the deletion and make it available again. Many thanks. If you need something else, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5dcube (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@5dcube: Please confirm the license via COM:VRT. Also what is the educational use of this file? Yann (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject file begins, "The Grand Cancún Eco‑Platform is a visionary offshore marine city proposed by architect Richard Moreta Castillo". That tells us that this is a derivative work of Castillo's design and therefore requires a free license from him. Please have him send one using VRT. Given that Castillo has a WP:EN article, I don't think that scope is a problem here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:S.C.H.A.L.E (Logomark version).png

Reason: The logomark of S.C.H.A.L.E from features a combination of geometric shapes and lines, including a circle, oval, Reticle/crosshair. Given the basic and common geometric elements used in this logomark, it not meet COM:TOO South Korea. --Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• COM:TOO South Korea

Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:WestStreetMap.png

The file was deleted without an opportunity for clarification.
What was the reason for the deletion request?
The notice states "CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)," but the image does not contain any personal faces. Please explain why this reason was applied, so that I can provide clarification.
For now, please restore the file and give me an opportunity for clarification. --Adreamy (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved admin: "Personal images" per Commons:CSD#F10 is not restricted to images just showing friends or classmates by the uploader, it also includes uploads "by users who have no constructive global contributions" (and, IMO, which appear to be out of COM:SCOPE). In the case at hand, to me it isn't clear to what purpose that graphic could serve. --Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)