Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/30

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
29 October 2024
31 October 2024
Deletion requests on 30 October 2024

October 30

[edit]

File:More conferencing! (3849935430).jpg

[edit]

Unused photo of nondescript event/people, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is part of a useful series, as shown in the tags on Flickr and in Category:IAU 27th General Assembly. The hillarious caption has by now been amended. Please keep.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:MVI 0189.MOV.00 40 34 04.Imagen fija001.jpg

[edit]

Unused random photo of some signs on a door, no educational use, out of scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 02:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It's identified in Spanish: "Puerta de ingreso al Laboratorio en el edificio de la UTN-Santa Fe". I don't speak a lot of Spanish, but I know that means "Entrance (door) to the laboratory in the UTN-Santa Fe Building." When I did a web search on UTN-Santa Fe, this was the first result: Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Facultad Regional Santa Fe. Now, the real issue could be that Argentina (which I figure .ar stands for in the university's URL) has a pretty restrictive COM:TOO, so their logo on the door might be a problem in that regard, but it is not a random sign on a door with no imaginable educational use, and I think it could be in scope but may not be within COM:TOO Argentina. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a new caption: "Entrance door to the Laboratory in the UTN-Santa Fe building (Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Facultad Regional Santa Fe). LaMyEn - Test and Measurement Laboratory. Manufacture of computers, peripherals and electronic items. Santa Fe, Argentina." Please keep.


File:제주드림타워.jpg

[edit]

this hotel & resort "Jeju Dream Tower" is already complete with construction. this picture is not official one as well. on behalf of Jeju Dream Tower, please remove this picture. Younganda14 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. We don't delete photos of things just because they've changed since the photo was taken. Omphalographer (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete While I agree with the above comment about not deleting photos just because something the photographed subject has changed since being photographed, there's only limited freedom of panorama for buildings in Korea per COM:FOP South Korea. Commons requires that the content it hosts not be subject to non-commercial use restrictions per COM:LJ. So, unless it's common practice under South Korean copyright law to treat buildings under construction as "non-building structures", it doesn't seem as if this file can be kept. The same thing would also seem to apply to File:제주드림타워정면.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Marchjuly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. The rationale is without merit, and the building as shown is a mere box. I doubt that's copyrightable as a design, in SK or anywhere else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:제주드림타워정면.jpg shows the same building. Either both are ok, or both are out. They are used on the same page at ko.wikipedia.org --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of Quanzhou Confucian Temple 01 2019-10.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep The does not appear to be a photograph subject to Freedom of Panorama. The map source is "own work." -- Ooligan (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel 我对删除这些图像没有意见，凡是有条件的，我都会自己画一张取代它（CAD、SKP、Adobe AI、PS这些我也都会用），即使删掉了，我也还会用该文件名再次上传。--猫猫的日记本 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of the respondent's response using translation feature of Microsoft Edge: "I have no problem with deleting these images, whenever there is a condition, I will draw a picture myself to replace it (CAD, SKP, Adobe AI, PS, etc., I will also use it), and even if I delete it, I will upload it again with the file name." (additional comment added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

File:Stuffed animals at the Ohio State Fair - DPLA - 0707e8e7721a382a45bbbb466ed0c15f.jpg

[edit]

Per COM:TOYS A1Cafel (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not sure any one toy here is actually prominent and clear enough to be problematic. I think this might be a rare case of a picture of toys that would be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fiona Hill lecture at Lafayette Square.jpg

[edit]

Because it is nonsense, absolutely unusable in any article CurlingMan13 (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit harsh for a poster promoting a talk by a notable foreign policy scholar, I think. Maybe it's not immediately useful, but I could see it being used on articles about the US response to the War in Ukraine, Fiona Hill's own page, or the Brookings Institution if someone wanted to demonstrate their social reach. Oganguly (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment it is certainly not nonsense, and usability in a Wikipedia article is not a requirement for Commons.
There may be a copyright issue, especially with the photo on the poster, but that would be a totally separate issue from the grounds given here. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge, because that photo is on Wikicommons with CC 3.0: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fiona_Hill_MSC_2017_(cropped).jpg. If I just need to credit it, I can do that. Oganguly (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Национальный флаг сибирских татар.jpg

[edit]

A fictitious flag of a non-existent people. Mizgel (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The people exist: Siberian Tatars, but the flags of them are completely made up and therefore  Delete. This flag was created by a group that encourages communication in the people's original Turkic language. It is not an official flag. Please also include the other version of this file File:Flag of Siberian Tatars.svg. One of the pages where the nominated file is used (ru:Обсуждение:Этнический флаг) is the talk page of the "Ethnic flag" article where there are several discussions about the massive amount of fictitious flags/original research and content in the article and the need to get rid of them. Nakonana (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just how many different flags can there be for Siberian Tatars? We currently have at least four different versions: File:Flag of the Siberian Tatar people 1.png Nakonana (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This flag is used in real life, see [1]. 5.142.178.40 15:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is not depicted on that page, as far as I can see. A flag like this one is described in the section "Флаг сибирских татар", however, going by the text, it's clear that this is neither a historical nor a modern official flag (or at least I don't see any mention of an authoritative entity approving this flag), but the result of discussions on social media and a commemoration conference (of unclear significance, reach, and authority). The relevant text passage: "В 2011 году в социальных сетях активно шло обсуждение проектов флага сибирских татар. Предлагались варианты и с изображением древней тамги, и с кедрами и соболями, и с волчьей головой (наподобие флага ногайцев). Обсуждался даже проект флага с большой буквой "Ц" в середине, автор проекта обосновывал его тем, что сибирские татары в речи часто "цокают". Наибольшую поддержку получил сине-бело-зеленый флаг с золотистой эмблемой. Проекты флага сибирских татар также обсуждались на проходившей 13-14.05.2011 года в Тюмени научно-практической конференции памяти поэта, публициста и прозаика Булата Сулейманова (т.н. "Сулеймановские чтения») и сине-бело-зеленый флаг также получил поддержку. В итоге национально-культурная автономия сибирских татар в Тюмени приняла этот флаг как народный символ." The mentioned "national-cultural autonomy of the Siberian Tatars in [the city of] Tyumen" is an organization that was established in 1998[2]. The organization is registered as an "МОО (Местная Общественная Организация)" according to their VK page[3], which means that they are a local NGO (non-government organization). So what is the significance of their decision regarding this flag? Furthermore, the text on the website itself says that this flag is far from being commonly used or accepted. Relevant text passage: "Хотя, видимо, до всеобщего признания этого флага пока далеко, т.к. все еще продолжают появляться различные варианты других флагов, символизирующие сибирских татар. Например, в сети можно увидеть похожий рисунок, но без трехлепесткового цветка, с эмблемой, напоминающей эмблему с флага Ичкерии (но без лежащего волка); а также флаг, дополненный тамгой золотоордынских ханов."
Besides, since this flag is apparently a modern creation and not an official state symbol (and thus not PD), the question of copyright status needs to be cleared. According to the provided vexillology website, the flag was created in 2011, but it wasn't uploaded to Commons until 2014. Is the uploader the author of the flag? The other version of this flag File:Flag of Siberian Tatars.svg provides differing author information: "изначальный концепт - MaratAA, SVG файл создан, откорректировал - Sebirkhan" ("initial concept by MaratAA, SVG created, corrected by [Wikipedia user] Sebirkhan") and the source is given as https://vk.com/sybyrlar. However, this other version was uploaded even later than the nominated one, in 2017, and it was also uploaded under a different license and by a user who had a lot of their uploaded flag images deleted per their talk page. For further assessment of this deletion request, I'm also pointing to previous deletion requests for the svg version of this file, which I discovered while checking the uploader's talk page: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Siberian Tatars.svg. The image was kept with the argument that it was COM:INUSE at the time of the deletion nomination, but the discussion might also provide some potentially relevant background information. Meanwhile, another file with a similar file name has been deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Siberian Tatar people.svg. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:241024 twice nayeon k.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by FlyingAce as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Taken from https://www.sportsq.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=472180 Ankry (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per UDR complaint.
However, the source video is watermarked with a TV station logo and it is not clear if the Flickr accout owner is related to the TV station and so authorized to license the video. Ankry (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9c/20241030085021%21241024_twice_nayeon_k.jpg Yolo9090 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9c/20241030085627%21241024_twice_nayeon_k.jpg Yolo9090 (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by JForget

[edit]

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Tornado Chicot County, Arkansas.JPG
Emailed creator September 23; no response. VRT ticket:2024103010003153

Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete for the Arkansas picture.  Neutral for the Indiana picture pending a more detailed rationale. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion rationale is expressed in the final paragraph of the DR "All these images..."
It is the same as almost all the third-party content from NWS sites: there is no evidence of permission, and the COM:ONUS is on anyone who wants to keep them to provide that evidence. Up until last month, some folks asserted that the weather.gov general site disclaimer was evidence of permission (the only evidence...) but we now know that this isn't the case. There's no more detailed rationale than that, and the question is really to anyone who wants to keep them: "without the general disclaimer, what evidence for permission is there?"
Any work I've done in finding some of the photographers or asking questions of the NWS offices that published their images is a courtesy only and does not reverse the burden of proof, which resides, as it always has, with those who want to keep. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Third-party photos hosted by the NWS uploaded by HurricaneKappa

[edit]

These images were both sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers. However, we have no evidence that either of these images are in the public domain or available under a free license.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. For anyone interested in seeking the permission of the creators to retain these files, I offer, as a head start, the following notes left over from when I investigated them:

File:Happy, Texas Tornado Damage.jpg
Emailed creator; Stopped responding October 2. VRT ticket:2024103010003421

Both these images were taken in the US after 1989, and therefore automatically protected by copyright at the instant of their creation unless ineligible for some reason. Unless anybody can provide any evidence of ineligibility for copyright, or permission from the respective copyright owners, we must delete both the files listed in this request per COM:PRP because as far as we can tell, they both are protected by copyright. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete on the Happy, TX tornado image.  Neutral on the other pending further information. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Cold air funnel cloud 2008-08-19 Amarillo.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it are attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source on September 30, but they stopped responding on October 2 without confirming the copyright or licensing status of the file.

I forwarded our correspondence to the VRT: (ticket:2024103010003421)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator not ineligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

Rlandmann (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armoiries - nouveau blason.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no permission (No permission since) Krd 08:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Tskhinval.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as no source (No source since) Krd 08:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added source: http://tskhinval.ru/print:symbols_of_city.html. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortymile River from Taylor Highway.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

Rlandmann (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: An article linked from Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-NWS review/File review statuses identifies Larry and June Taylor as "official observers" of the National Weather Service. Here are more details on what being an "official observer" means. However, I'm not sure if that affects the copyright status. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because observers are volunteers, not federal government employees, we'd need to see:
  • evidence of a contract that transfers volunteers' copyrights into the public domain (not simply transfers their copyrights to the NWS)
  • evidence that this photo was taken under the terms of that contract
(or, of course, evidence of a release of copyright or a free license via any other mechanism, as for any other image) Without that, the copyright presumably belongs to either June or Larry Taylor. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Conditional delete pending any further info. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Wwparka.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:16 June 1992 Chandler tornado.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tornado southofKennett.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stoneville nws blacksburg.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscela-Polk-tornado-06202011.JPG

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Witoka hwy17a.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image 2007 or so from the EN:WP to Commons. Obviously wrong attribution there and then already. Delete. Matthiasb (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girardcr36.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EF3 tornado near Nickerson, Kansas.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder.

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files found with Special:Search/brizzlebornandbred

[edit]

brizzlebornandbred seems to have been a Flickr user (account now deleted) who uploaded nostalgic British cultural images that he found interesting, writing a little about them in the file description. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:TV Shows We Used To Watch - The Worker - Charlie Drake 1965-70.jpg from this Flickr user is just a still from a 1960s TV show, licenced on Commons as CC-BY to their own name.)

It's possible that the user's street photos taken in the 1960s were his own work, but these ones look like press and publicity shots. There's also a 1928 aerial photograph.

Belbury (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Pilifo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Is this permanent display as required by Commons:Freedom of panorama in Slovakia?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After all, they are photos created by me that are in the public domain. Thanks. Pilifo (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hajj front of Haramian.jpg

[edit]

COPYVIO AjayDas (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag day

[edit]

Probably some content here worth merging into Flag day in the English-language Wikipedia, but this is basically an overlapping encyclopedia article, not at all a Commons gallery. Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FRIDAY NIGHT FUNKIN' -Playable Pico Preview- Sep.12th.webm

[edit]

Derivative work of Pico, mascot character of the Newgrounds website (https://newgrounds.fandom.com/wiki/Pico) Trade (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:City wall of Sheng County 02 2017-03.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for 2D works in China A1Cafel (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep@A1Cafel 本标志牌的内容是公布文物保护单位的保护范围和建设控制地带，根据《中华人民共和国文物保护法》，“各级文物保护单位，分别由省、自治区、直辖市人民政府和市、县级人民政府划定必要的保护范围，作出标志说明。根据保护文物的实际需要，经省、自治区、直辖市人民政府批准，可以在文物保护单位的周围划出一定的建设控制地带，并予以公布。”
且在图片左下角明确该图片及文字说明均源自于浙江省人民政府（浙政函[2007]22号文件）。
再根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第五条，“该法不适用于法律、法规，国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件，及其官方正式译文。”
该图片中内容由政府机构根据法定管理职责发布，并属于政府为管理文物保护单位所形成的行政性质的文件，并不具备版权。 猫猫的日记本 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, map and all text apply {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. Kcx36 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilles Fumey au festival international de géographie 2024.jpg

[edit]

Hello, I would like to delete this photo which was not successful, the photographer had less than a minute to take it. Is it possible to replace it with another one in the gallery? Thank you so much. 85.170.245.209 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
Je devine par votre message que vous devez être le sujet présent sur l'image. Vous aviez validé cette photographie lors de sa prise en la consultant sur mon appareil photo, dire donc qu'elle n'est pas réussie est regrettable. C'est donc pour cette raison qu'elle figure sur Wikimedia Commons. De plus, vous étiez prévenu à ce moment qu'elle serait utilisée sur Wikipédia et aviez donné votre accord.
Vous souhaitez que cette image soit retirée, très bien, je vais en acter la demande de suppression et respecter vos droits. Cependant, je trouve extrêmement dommage, puisque c'est la plus récente en grande résolution qui soit disponible sur Commons, de la faire supprimer.
Je vais la remplacer sur Wikipédia en français par cette image, qui est la seule autre photographie assurément sous licence libre qui soit de résolution raisonnable.
En vous souhaitant une bonne continuation.
Mickaël Mickaël en résidence (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, as the author of this image, I hereby confirm my request for its deletion, in order to assert the image rights of the person depicted, who unfortunately withdrew his consent after the import.
Thank you very much Le Commissaire (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was taken in a public place, is there a legal right to demand a takedown? This photo is in use, and photos that are in use are not deleted just because someone objects to them, unless there's a legal or Commons policy-based reason to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In France, it is legal to request the removal of an image in which you appear, without having to justify yourself, and in all circumstances. (You can obtain information from the CNIL - Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés - National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties - ). Le Commissaire (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can request, but is it mandatory to accede to such requests? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Le Commissaire (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a legal requirement, I don't think Wikimedia Legal has a choice in the matter, and in that case, we probably didn't need a deletion request, and they, or perhaps COM:VRT should have been contacted, instead. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nazi swastika on a background of the US and UK flags.png

[edit]

Unused fictitious flag; out of project scope. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - I’ve seen this fictional flag before. You don’t need to delete it. OMGShay 92 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:NUCB Business School.jpg

[edit]

own work? https://mba.nucba.ac.jp/access/nagoya.html eien20 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável.png

[edit]

Doesn't meet {{PD-UN-doc}} as it is not a "text document". Belbury (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nana Patole during detention after protest.jpg

[edit]

Possible license laundering by the Flickr uploader, no camera EXIF plus no followers. Abzeronow (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warning File Icon.png

[edit]

New account does not have autopatrol but has updated version of file that should be used, current file is not used in any Wikimedia project. The People's Internet Legacy Assets (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saints Row 2 on Igromir 2008 (3012105101).jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted billboard and video game gameplay is clearly the focus of the photo Trade (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sylheti world.jpg

[edit]

Inaccurate map with no sources or references, such figures can never found as no data is recorded of such a group and wrong countries are highlighted giving false information Abu Ayyub (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Munfordville, Kentucky Tornado, November 6, 2005.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source. They confirmed that some photos taken by the Civil Air Patrol belong to agencies that paid for missions, but the CAP retains ownership of others. They stopped responding by September 21 without confirming the status of this particular image.

I forwarded our correspondence to the VRT: (ticket:2024102710005989)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.



Rlandmann (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin. Saffet Arıkan Adolf Hitler'in evinde Berlin. Saffet Arıkan in Adolf Hitler's house.jpg

[edit]

Pertenece al gobierno de Polonia esta foto? 186.174.39.170 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FridleyDamage.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party, although it is unclear whether the supplier of the image was actually the photographer and presumably copyright owner.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to a person who I believe supplied the photo named in the attribution at the source on September 22, but they never replied. The actual creator holder therefore remains unknown.

I forwarded our correspondence to the VRT: (ticket:2024103010012741)

Since this is an image created in the US before 1989, its copyright status will depend on the circumstances of its first publication, in particular, whether it was published before or after March 1, 1989. The earliest known publication of this image is on the NWS website where it was sourced. Unless any evidence of a previous publication can be found, this image is protected for 70 years after the death of its creator, or 120 years (expiring in 2086) if its creator is never identified.

Without evidence to the contrary, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP. 


Rlandmann (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esmeralda la zíngara.jpg

[edit]

The Spanish Wikipedia entry for the film suggests that the Spanish debut was in 1944, making this poster copyrighted in Spain until the end of this year, and in the US until 2040. It is very unlikely that the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder, so the requirements for {{PDMark-Owner}} are not met. Felix QW (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waverly, NE EF3 Tornado on April 26, 2024.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source on September 5, but they never replied. (VRT ticket:2024103010012876)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.


Rlandmann (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Washington tornado at EF4 intensity passing by home taken by Anthony Khoury.jpg

[edit]

This image has been uploaded from a National Weather Service web page, where it is attributed to a third party.

For many years, hosting such images on the Commons was done in good faith under the rationale that:

  • public submissions to the NWS all entered the public domain and/or
  • all files hosted on NWS websites were in the public domain unless they carried a formal copyright notice

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that neither of these beliefs held up to scrutiny. These findings were confirmed in an RfC conducted from August to October 2024.

Per COM:ONUS it is the responsibility of the person uploading an image to the Commons or anyone arguing for its retention here to provide evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I reached out to the creator named in the attribution at the source on October 2, but they never replied. (VRT ticket:2024103010012947)

Since this is an image created in the US after 1989 and is attributed to a creator eligible for copyright, this is a presumably unfree file and we must delete it as a precaution under COM:PRP.

Rlandmann (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: What platform did you try to contact the photographer on? He seems to have a presence on multiple websites. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We need to wait until we get the owner's response Hoguert (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nearly 8 weeks. If he hasn't responded yet, it's unlikely that he's going to. If he eventually does respond and wish to release his image into the public domain or under a free license, we can un-delete at that point. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well is there a way to make the image Fair Use material like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2023_Rolling_Fork_tornado.png? Hoguert (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that in most or all cases, having an image of a notable tornado would be eligible as fair use if no free image of the event is known to exist. @WeatherWriter: has written excellent fair-use rationales for other weather images and certainly has the know-how to help you craft a good one. (Conversely, I think that w:File:2023 Rolling Fork tornado.png is a bad example and if challenged probably wouldn't survive a deletion discussion unless re-written. Don't use it as a model.)
I'm also very willing to help, but I lack the weather knowledge that you folks have. It's your subject-matter knowledge that can justify what's interesting/important about this image, as opposed to it just being there for decoration (which is not a rationale for fair use). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A really good example template is w:File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg or w:File:Photograph of the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado.png. Both of those specifically were uploaded because the photographs themselves are “historic” and well-used by RS, which is subsequently showed by all the RS listed in the template. The non-free photographs, like Rlandmann said, cannot be just for decoration. If the photograph is not super well-known / well-used by RS (which only works for the most famous F5/EF5 tornadoes), then the photograph’s rationale for being uploaded needs to be related to the article in some capacity. For example, w:File:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado aerial of overpass.jpg is a non-free file currently used on w:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado#Highway overpass misconception in a section specifically regarding that overpass, which triggered national attention. So in that case, the overpass being shown is actually discussed directly by RS. The photo, if not one of the like 10 most famous tornado photographs used by international RS, needs to related to the article’s content in some capacity. Even the famous photographs have to related to the article’s content. The key is that they aren’t just for decoration and serve a purpose. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoguert: — When you would like, I can do my best to sort of walk you through the process of doing a few non-free-use rational uploads. For example, a quick glance at the photographs’ information (Wiki article + NWS article), it appears it was taken at the tornado’s peak intensity, which is mentioned in the article. NWS directly stated it was taken at the same time the radar scan (File:The Washington tornado maintaining high-end EF4 strength with a debris ball evident on reflectivity.jpg) occurred, which is at peak intensity. So part of the non-free rational for this specific image would be: (1) Shows the “historic” (NWS-term) tornado at its peak intensity, (2) tie into the radar frame, which was discussed directly by NWS (i.e. the radar frame + this photograph were discussed together), and (3) adding on that it may or may not be free-to-use, since it is on an NWS site without a direct copyright statement (COM:PRP). The idea with a non-free file is that it has to directly related to the article in some fashion. In this specific case, RS (the National Weather Service) discuss the image itself and not just list it for decoration & the Wikipedia article also directly discusses this moment in time (actually down to the exact minute the photograph was taken), which supports the non-free rational. Like I said, whenever you want to learn about the non-free rationals, I can help you out! WeatherWriter (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓[OK] Done, although it’s with a separate image since this one doesn’t show the tornado effectively. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'd call that a pretty borderline rationale that probably wouldn't stand if challenged along the lines of "Yes, we can see it's a tornado, and we have plenty of other pictures of what a tornado looks like. Is there anything at all that this image shows us that's important or interesting about this tornado?"
Put another way, I've only been looking at tornado photos for a couple of months, and even I am aware of at least two instances where the NWS has mixed up images of otherwise unremarkable, generic-looking tornadoes. One they've fixed, and the other is still on the NWS site. What makes this picture anything special? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a depiction of THE tornado, not A tornado. This tornado looked unlike many other tornadoes due to its violent nature, and fair use imagery should be warranted for standalone subjects (several train articles have them), even if there's a common, free image of the main subject, like "train". I got the image from a YouTube video aswell, since the NWS one didn't convery the tornado in a good way. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 12:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure; I'm only providing an opinion on the likely outcome if anyone were ever to challenge a generic, low-detail rationale like that. I do so because I think it's better and easier to write a solid rationale now, at leisure, than in the heat of a deletion discussion. You're completely free to ignore that advice, just like folks here on the Commons ignored over a year of advice from more than one person that there was something likely very wrong with the NWS website disclaimer.
I only hope that if Hoguert wants to upload fair-use images to en:w, they take one of WeatherWriter's excellent rationales as a model to follow, and not one like this. (And, in the interest of transparency, I have zero interest in taking this up on en:w. Any challenge will come from someone other than me.) --Rlandmann (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the aggression, I told you why it would stand up and instead I’m the one getting lectured for “ignoring advice”. He can feel free to XfD any image he’d like, and I never said he couldn’t. I see no issue with the current fair-use image, which displays the tornado as-is, which is exactly what this image would do if uploaded. To avoid starting a dispute, let’s just keep it on the civil side, which is further than it is near. If nobody likes the current image, FfD it. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, I’ll just CSD it. EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if my tone conveyed aggression to you. That was not my intent and I have no emotions here one way or the other. I am simply seeking to avoid easily foreseeable future complications. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at ya, there was a lot happening on en.wiki and I guess i just had some (unacceptable) anger, so sorry for taking that out on you. :) EF5 ._. (talk - contribs) 00:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Hans Christen (Bruder Klaus Kirche, Basel)

[edit]

copyvio; artist d. 1994; no fop.

Martin Sg. (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question All four files have a VRT tag. Is that for the photos only or does it include the shown works of art as well? --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Roy Hill (1970).jpg

[edit]

This is not George Roy Hill. There's an actual photo of him on the set of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid here, which makes it pretty obvious this is just some random guy (as if the fact that this guy is bald and has a mustache wasn't enough). This is cropped from another photo, File:George Roy Hill and William R Edmondson.jpg, whose discussion page has two comments that also point out this is not Hill. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorenzetti - Madonna col Bambino in trono e angeli, c. 1340, 1890 n. 445.jpg

[edit]

copy vio, this file is not covered by the PD-art tag as it is not PD-art but 3D see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lorenzetti - firma - Madonna con Bambino in trono e angeli, 00284550.jpg Oursana (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose no need Maltaper (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sadoveanu - Nobela Peko, 1929, Morariu.pdf

[edit]

This is based on the complaint on the talk page. I can't load the source, so I can't verify whether John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin would actually have the rights to release the works of Sadoveanu and Morariu. The translator Morariu died in 1987, so copyright would naturally last until 2057 in the EU, where it was originally published (Leipzig, Germany). However, it was published in 1929, and is out of copyright in the US in two months. At that point, it could be uploaded to the Esperanto Wikisource, their rules willing, or the multilingual Wikisource, which does accept works that are PD-US-only if the normal Wikisource excludes them by their copyright rules. Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ĉi tio baziĝas sur la plendo sur la diskutpaĝo. Mi ne povas ŝargi la fonton, do mi ne povas kontroli ĉu Johano Paŭlo la 2-a Katolika Universitato de Lublin efektive havus la rajtojn liberigi la verkojn de Sadoveanu kaj Morariu. La tradukinto Morariu mortis en 1987, do kopirajto nature daŭros ĝis 2057 en EU, kie ĝi estis origine eldonita (Leipzig, Germanio). Tamen, ĝi estis publikigita en 1929, kaj estas sen kopirajto en Usono en du monatoj. Tiutempe, ĝi povus esti alŝutita al la Esperanta Vikifontaro, laŭ iliaj reguloj, aŭ al la plurlingva Vikifontaro, kiu ja akceptas verkojn kiuj estas nur PD-Usonaj se la normala Vikifontaro ekskludas ilin per siaj kopirajtaj reguloj. --Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. On the page where I found this book, it is indicated that the rights are hold by the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, and that it is public domain. So I don’t understand… Lepticed7 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, the page wouldn't load for me. I am a little skeptical that it's not just carelessness, especially as there is Sadoveanu and Morariu's copyrights to worry about. Sadoveanu was a major Romanian author who died in 1961, associated with Communism and the Romanian Orthodox Church. How did rights to his works end up in the hands of the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin? Morariu is more likely, but not sufficient, and even there I'd like more information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaliforniyskaya-poroda.jpg

[edit]

low resolution, no Exif > very likely to be an imagevio — Draceane talkcontrib. 09:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/10/30&oldid=975818488"