Commons:Deletion requests/2024/04/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
9 April 2024
11 April 2024
Deletion requests on 10 April 2024

April 10[edit]

File:Banner at demonstrations and protests against Chavismo and Nicolas Maduro government 35.jpg[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted newspaper A1Cafel (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:National Forest Logo.svg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Someone who's wrong on the internet as Logo: COM:TOO? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 11:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See wikipedia:File:The National Forest logo.svg. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: nomination withdrawn. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Forest Logo.svg[edit]

Re-nominating. Forgot that the originality threshold in the UK is lower. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:The National Forest logo.svg. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The uploader's username suggests they are affiliated with the copyright holder. However, this will probably have to go through VRT as anyone can use any username on Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:1872 Presidential Election in Ohio by county.svg[edit]

Unused and already has a svg file 2600:1009:B061:DF52:7590:FC48:39AF:BD3C 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ontario Street Public School 2018 (01).jpg[edit]

Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Canada A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The small image / graphic on the sign can be blurred out, and it would not affect the purpose or scope of the original photograph. PascalHD (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Total Solar Eclipse - Bowling Green, OH.jpg[edit]

Screenshot per Metadata, dubious claim of own work A1Cafel (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image was taken from a screenshot of a video that was captured on April 8, 2024 by me. Source video can be provided alongside video metadata. MultiEditor03 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolls 810-0909.jpg[edit]

Copyright violation?? see COM:TOYS Headlock0225 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:სოფელი საქართველოში, ჯავის რაიონში (ცხინვალის რეგიონი).jpg[edit]

Unlikely to be useful as a map Alaexis (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Herbert Sutcliffe card c1930.jpg[edit]

Unclear whether it being a cigarette card is sufficient evidence for it being anonymous. Anonymous or not, "c. 1930" is insufficient to escape URAA restoration as a British post-1928 image. Felix QW (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are both sides of the card. The series was released in 1928 (which would make URAA moot) and the cards do not credit any individual photographers, so anonymous photographer is not unreasonable. There are some instances where the photographer was identified (a few of the political or celebrity ones here, but the backs of the cards aren't shown to see if the photographer was credited or later identified), but generally, I'm not finding photographers identified for J. Millhoff & Co. cigarette cards (this cricketer series, funny animals 1 and 2; by contrast, artists are clearly ID'd in the company's art series. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed research! I agree with everything you are saying. While I don't really use the anonymous copyright tags for my own uploads personally, seeing the back of the card is definitely sufficient to withdraw my nomination. Felix QW (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per nominator. —Tcr25 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Herbert Sutcliffe from the UK in 1932[edit]

British 1932 photographs will definitely still be copyrighted in the US until 2027 inclusive. Whether it can be restored in 2028 will depend on whether there is considered to be sufficient evidence that these images are truly anonymous and therefore indeed public domain in the UK.

Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxusskrimslið.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Nutshinou as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:CSD#F1, Possible copyright violation: No evidence of a free license at the claimed source.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article this file is used in says Helgi Grímur Hermannsson made the artwork. -- Nutshinou Talk! 10:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Act Fast Anti Choking Trainer Demonstration.jpg[edit]

Previously published at https://www.3bscientific.com/us/act-fast-rescue-choking-vest-red-with-slap-back-1014589-w43300r-af-101-r,p_157_16752.html, please provide evidence for ownership and copyright statement via COM:VRT. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I initially tagged this as a copyvio because it appeared to be a clear case of COM:NETCOPYVIO. The uploader removed the tag without explanation and based on the user's comments on their talk page, it's clearly not their own work and the user does not understand COM:L. The user has promised to correct the source information, but if they do not provide any evidence of a free license, I will re-tag this as a copyvio or no source-dw. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://www.actfastmed.com/terms-of-use/ the contents do meet the required standards. I hope this helps Serrwinner (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandra, Queen of Yugoslavia.jpg[edit]

All rights reserved at source page. Notice at source says "Copying content from the Serbian Royal Family website is not allowed without the prior approval of the administrator." Celia Homeford (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Website terms of service are not the same as copyright law. Republishing an historic image does no transfer the copyright or restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know this file is from Serbia in 1945?[1] She was exiled then. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible for this to be a Yugoslavian photograph. She was never in Yugoslavia, ever. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably taken in UK, and in the public domain there, but copyright in USA is uncertain. I would keep if proof of publication in USA around 1945 is found, otherwise delete. Yann (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Order of Karl Marx (1974).jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Finnusertop. Как указано в шаблоне PD-GermanGov, «изображение находится в общественном достоянии согласно немецкому закону о защите авторских прав, так как оно является частью законодательного акта, постановления, официального указа или решения (официальной работой), изданной немецкими государственными или местными властями или судом». Вы не считаете наградную грамоту о награждении орденом Карла Маркса — официальным указом немецких государственных властей или что? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is correct. That is what the previous discussion decided. That decision should be enforced, unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Изображение, напечатанное на наградной грамоте как государственном документе, не имеет никакого отношения к тому обсуждению. Если уж вы хотите поговорить предметно, то вот, пожалуйста. Человек сначала допытывался напечатано ли изображение ордена в указе об учреждении этого самого ордена, а потом вдруг сменил стратегию и начал говорить, что в законах об авторском праве Германии ничего не написано про изображения. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im Urheberrechtsgesetz von 9. September 1965 (in Kraft ab 1. Januar 1966) wurde zwischen Lichtbildern (§ 72) und Lichtbildwerken (§ 68), bei denen eine eigene geistige Schöpfung vorliegt, unterschieden. Die Schutzfrist betrug jeweils 25 Jahre (1). Грамота с фотографическим изображением ордена была выпущена в 1973 году. Вы не думаете, что к 2024 году 25 лет уже прошли? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, it is simply a case of: Commons:Derivative works. It does not matter how free the photograph (or phographic work) is, because it contains the design of the medal, which is not free. The medal itself is not a decree, and as such the design of the medal is not free. Pinging from the previous discussion for opinions: Rosenzweig and Infrogmation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per my previous nomination rationale: “Contrary to claims, this 1953 medal is not an official work of Germany in the sense of {{PD-GermanGov}} because it is not "part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". Per [2], it was designed by German artist de:Rudolf Oelzner, who died in 1985.” Please note that not any certificate etc. is an "official work" in Germany (in the sense of {{PD-GermanGov}}), but only a "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx.

This has also nothing to do with the copyright terms for "simple" photographs in Germany; it's not about the photograph, but about the medal as such. The current term for "simple" photographs in Germany is 50 years by the way, and the German courts have restricted the "simple" photograph category to X-ray images, satellite and surveillance cam imagery, automated photo booth images and similar. --Rosenzweig τ 20:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Não há violação de direito autoral se o ente dententor do direito (Alemanha Oriental) já se dissolveu. Kássio Santiago (talk)

Wrong. The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) certainly did have usage rights, but it was not the owner of the copyright; that's not how German Urheberrecht works. Even if it had been, those rights would have been transfered to the unified German state of today. --Rosenzweig τ 12:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Oswald Vitor (talk · contribs)[edit]

Unlikely that any of these are own work, and some include copyrighted materials in their own right. All of the files are uncategorized and these are the only edits by this user. Also see this image to note that the Joe Oriolo image is not an own work, thus implying the same for all of the others.

SDudley (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how people will learn when these people looked like (except Rumiko Takahashi and Don Oriolo who are still alive)? Why people who are alive were allowed to add more recent photos along with deceased ones who are allowed to have photos uploaded at Wikipedia? Oswald Vitor (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I understand that frustration. However, there are copyright laws that we have to adhere to. Some of the images you uploaded could be used on Wikipedia if uploaded under a Fair Use rationale where they are allowed. To be accepted on Commons there are different rules, and these images don't meet those requirements. For an example of one work that does meet such requirements please see this image of Dave Fleischer that I sourced. Once again I totally get your frustrations, and I hope to be able to help in getting these people proper images. SDudley (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joint inspection by police and army in Malaysia during MCO.jpg[edit]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from OneNews YouTube channel A1Cafel (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ijerph-19-03846-g001.png[edit]

Image release form used by MDPI which specifically says images are released under a CC BY license

The uploader cites https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3846 as the image source, but while the article itself has a CC-BY license, the photo caption says the images were provided by their respective manufacturers with permission to include, not under a free license. It's likely the manufacturers have retained the copyright to the images. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)."
I assumed the "permission to include" also included release under the license in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James I wouldn't make that assumption. To me, "permission to include" implies a one-time, limited release, not a complete forfeiture of intellectual property rights. If the product images were in the public domain, I would expect that to be explicitly mentioned. It's pretty common for copyright-free sources to include "courtesy of..." content without asking the copyright holders to release all rights. The CC-BY license should only apply to content created by the article authors. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It states here "any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited"[3]
Check out page 5 here[4]. It gets specific release of images under an CC BY license same as the rest of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James We can agree to disagree here, but I think the relevant text is "permission to include", which to me is distinct from "permission to relicense and/or redistribute". And to me, the CC-BY license only applies to the article itself. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the permission form that MDPI uses to get release on images? And that it specifically mentioned that the image release includes CC BY release?
Have added an image of the specific text in the release form to help you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James Sorry, I hadn't looked at the links you included in your last comment, but thank you for including the screenshot - that makes sense. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:S garvezys1.jpg[edit]

mistakes in description Yuri937 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:S garvezys1.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Obivan Kenobi as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Tcr25 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file information should be corrected. The image is derivative of File:С (чертеж 1).gif, which was taken from a 1984 issue of Моделист-Конструктор magazine. The archived version of the magazine doesn't credit the original source, but File:Rospars.gif includes the same base schematic attributed to 1925 documentation from the Sormovo Locomotive Works, which produced this engine from 1910–1918. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exposition Astérix à la BnF (10307419275).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by TwoWings as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted work, no FoP in France, not de minimis here.

Converting to DR since this is a freely licensed photograph and FoP is handed via DR, not speedy deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Exposition Astérix à la BnF - Goscinnyrix, Uderzorix - Vis Comica.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by TwoWings as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted work, no FoP in France, not de minimis here.

Converting to DR since the photograph is freely licensed, and we handle FOP thorugh DR, not speedies. Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Exposition Astérix à la BnF (10307362244).jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by TwoWings as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted work, no FoP in France, not de minimis here.

Converting to DR since this is an FOP issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Erelu Ngozi Adeleke.jpg[edit]

Uploaded for the sole purpose of promoting Erelu Ngozi Adeleke. Re-upload of previously speedied file. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't feel strongly either way. I thought the Wikipedia draft was definitely puffy; it was a borderline case for G11 (which I would have probably declined had I reviewed). Regardless, the subject may be notable. She's the wife of Ademola Adeleke, if the draft is to be believed. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pesterchum.png[edit]

Seems a bit too complex to be below threshold of originality Trade (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:William Weld Endorsing Kathleen Caron (53315646172).jpg[edit]

Kirk Williamson was the photographer for the Salem Evening News (newspaper) from 1981 to 2000 (this photo was taken in 1994) according to his website here: https://capeannphototours.com/kirkwilliamson/

There is no evidence that permission or copyright was given to the Salem State University. Ooligan (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep The work was done for Salem Evening News, and the copyright was evidently held by them. They donated the rights to this and an entire collection of photographs to the University. SecretName101 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the University acquired a vast collection from The Salem News. https://libguides.salemstate.edu/home/archives/blog/salemnews SecretName101 (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire linked webpage. There is no mention of copyright. None. Also, there is no specific mention of the photographer Kirk Williamson. To "acquire a vast collection from Salem News" the link talks about "60,000 photographs" and "230,000 negatives"- however, the word "copyright" is not mentioned once. The word "permission" is not mentioned once. Acquisition of the physical possession of a photographic collection is not the same having acquired legals rights to the copyrighted photographs.
The link you provided, @SecretName101, does not give copyright permission. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) Ooligan (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The University has uploaded them under commons licensing, which they do not do for all items on their Flickr. Which seems to indicate they have assessed the copyright as proper to place under such a license. We tend to trust that institutions know what they are doing when they put something under such licensing. SecretName101 (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.png[edit]

uploaded an updated image from source without realizing the original file could be updated without having multiple uploads; will do the same for next update SiennaVue (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Selección Juvenil Uruguaya.jpg[edit]

Uruguay Round 200.39.139.26 21:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Club Comunicaciones Argentina.jpg[edit]

Trabajo propio, 1989 200.39.139.26 21:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elkarrekin Podemos No oficial.svg[edit]

COM:EV These logos are completely made up with no source showing they are official and do not serve any educational purpose. Basque mapping (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by BwanaHewa (talk · contribs)[edit]

These files seem to have been scanned from physical items in posession of the uploader. However, they do not have the right to license them, as they have done, under the terms of a CC-BY-SA license.

Bedivere (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bedivere, I have received messages that you have requested deletion of files I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The most important files for me are the ones that are used on the Wikipedia page for Peter Bransgrove. He lived from 1914 to 1966 and worked as an architect in Dar es Salaam, Tanganyika, now called Tanzania. I went to a school in Dar es Salaam that he designed. In about 2014 I made contact with his grandson, who is an architect in Perth, Australia. I created the Wikipedia page for Peter Bransgrove, using photographs provided by the grandson and uploaded by me to Wikipedia Commons. The photographs show some of the buildings that Peter Bransgrove designed. Could you please advise me how I could license the photographs so that they can remain on Wikimedia Commons, or how they could avoid being deleted? Best wishes, BwanaHewa BwanaHewa (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the steps at COM:VRT. The grandson of Bransgrove could provide permission. These files may be deleted in the meantime, but if permission is received and validated by volunteers, these will be restored. As for the other images, only if you provide proof these are in the public domain or are your own work (which does not seem likely) these could remain. @BwanaHewa Bedivere (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been in email contact with the grandson of Peter Bransgrove. He says that File:C.A. "Peter" Bransgrove (1914-1966) Architect.jpg was from Peter Bransgrove's family photograph album, and File:British Legion Offices and Hostel Dar es Salaam.jpg, File:Barclays Bank DCO Dar es Salaam.jpg, File:Pamba House Dar es Salaam.jpg, and File:Tanganyika Standard Offices Dar es Salaam.jpg were from Peter Bransgrove's office photograph album. The photograph albums were inherited by his grandson. File:Luther House Dar es Salaam.jpg and File:YWCA Dar es Salaam.jpg were given by Mr Joep Mol to Peter Bransgrove's grandson, with permission for him to use them. These two photographs are overprinted "Photo by Joep Mol". The other photographs of Peter Bransgrove's buildings are from books and the internet.
The photographs I uploaded were taken in the 1950s and 1960s, except for File:Professor Brian Juden 1980s.jpg and File:John Spencer Dunville VC (1896-1917).jpg. The photographers have probably died by now and the photographs do not have any commercial value. Many of them were publicity photographs for the free use of the public and the media. It is possible that the photographers would have been pleased that their work was still being viewed and appreciated. The Wikipedia pages on which the photographs are being used would be diminished by the removal of the photographs. If the photographs are deleted from Wikimedia Commons, a few small pieces of history will be lost for ever. BwanaHewa (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His grandson could eventually provide permission following the steps at COM:VRT for the photos taken by Peter Bransgrove. Those by Joep Mol, we would need permission by them or their inheritors. As for the other photographs, we would need too permission from their copyright holders. These photos could eventually be restored if they are found to be in the public domain or they enter the public domain for their antiquity. For instance, Johnny Kid's photograph comes from Getty's Redferns collection and its author is "Gems". Gems' photos have been used in media since at least 1993, [5] so I guess that's an authorship claim and the license used clearly does not apply. Bedivere (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eduardo Sguiglia 04.2023.jpg[edit]

Nao foi eu quem fiz o carregamento. 200.39.139.26 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broma aparte, no es un trabajo propio.

200.39.139.26 21:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wes Nofire Portrait.jpg[edit]

TulsaPoliticsFan removed {{PD-USGov}} from File:Wes Nofire Portrait (cropped).jpg with a summary of "does not apply to tribal nations". I've reinstated the template, but I suspect that the reasoning is correct and tribal nations are not covered by {{PD-USGov}}. This covers both of these files:

--bjh21 (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The first request on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BottleOfChocolateMilk is a previous instance of this. --bjh21 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'll bet you my Oklahoma law license I'm right on {{PD-USGov}} not applying to tribal governments. I've seen this mistake a few times on Commons, but am not active here so was not sure how to bring it to anyone's attention. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is also probably copyrighted by the Cherokee Nation and has been mislabeled public domain. The image in the VOA article is attributed, meaning its copyrighted and not PD.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-USGov}} only applies to works by the federal government, not even ones by state or local governments - you'd be right even if it weren't for all the weirdness that goes along with tribal sovereignty. Omphalographer (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete {{PD-USGov}} doesn't apply to tribal governments, the Cherokee Nation has a copyright notice at the bottom as well. reppoptalk 18:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/04/10&oldid=870482261"