Commons:Deletion requests/2024/10/27

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
26 October 2024
28 October 2024
Deletion requests on 27 October 2024

October 27

[edit]

File:Espace réservé au statut du musée patrimoniale de Baham.jpg

[edit]

presence de marque de telephone Bile rene (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Watermarks are discouraged but not on their own a reason to delete; source image for a cropped version without the watermark. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:JOE & THE JUICE signage Westbourne Grove W2.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Has anyone actually asked you to delete this or are you just running around being overvigilant?
It looks from your list of entries you are of that sort. (Lots of items being tagged for deletion by you, probably without anyone who may own rights having asked you to.)
Please bear in mind that as we walk through our cities, just about everything we see has been CREATED by someone and therefore HAS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SOME SORT attached to it. If someone builds a wall, it's their creation. If someone lays down a street pattern, it's their creation. Etc etc. Maybe the time to delete something is when someone actually takes the point, rather than you running around using your "initiative" to destroy other people'S work willy-nilly because you feel like it? You could pick on lots of my photos and say, hey, that's someone's art (e.g. railway entrance signs, for instance and you haven't picked on the others (as yet!).)
I actually find this tedious, rightly or wrongly. Because there's no point in taking pictures at all and putting them here if people like yourself come out of the woodwork and censor them - where does the censorship stop?
I will ask Joe and the Juice if they want it deleted. Probably they will, if so I will come back to you and confirm you should delete this. Or maybe they won't care. Colin McLaughlin (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to them. email:
Hi.
I took a photo of your "Joe and the Juice" sign (as it's a cool sign) from the street as I was walking through London W9.
I put a copy of this photo on Wikimedia Commons, among my various photos. The photo is "public domain" - i.e. anyone can use my photo free of charge, without consent, for any purpose.
Technically your sign is copyright (i.e. subject to intellectual property rights as a design) so putting it on Wikimedia Commons has led me into conflict with the supervisors of that site, who want to delete my photograph. See the discussion here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:JOE_%26_THE_JUICE_signage_Westbourne_Grove_W2.jpg
Please would you ask the person who owns the rights in the sign (you will need to check who owns the design and copyright rights) if they want and require my photo to be deleted from Wikimedia Commons (in which case it will be deleted) or if you are happy for my photograph to stay in the public domain on Wikimedia Commons as an "anyone can use this photograph for any purpose" photograph.
It's up to you. No urgency.
Thanks,
Colin McLaughlin
Colin McLaughlin (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have since added the photo to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_%26_The_Juice so please don't just delete this before a reply is received to the email above. Colin McLaughlin (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per nomination. The freedom of panorama exception form the UK copyright act doesn't apply to 2D graphic works. @Colin McLaughlin: we appreciate the time that you spend taking pictures, but you have to remember that Commons only host images that are educational and have no copyright issues. You photo doesn't fulfill the latter. To avoid frustrations on your side you may consider reading some of the core policies like COM:FOP, COM:DW and COM:PCP that are relevant in this DR. Also, remember that the work of users that review and classify images is as valuable as yours, so please avoid personal attacks. Günther Frager (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It isn't a 2D work, it's a 3D work as you can clearly see in the photo the edge of the sign in the photo, so I suggest on the basis of the material you referred me to it's allowed under copyright law in the context of surroundings. i have better things to do than research the whole of copyright law but the sign in the photo clearly has three dimensions (as one would expect), all three visible. (2) If you type "Joe and the Juice" into the Wikimedia Commons search engine you will see several other photos which include the "Joe and the Juice" sign so it's difficult to see why you have let those photos stand while you are picking on mine, this is called discrimination. (3) I have added my photo to the "Joe and the Juice" page on Wikipedia, so the photo is helping the Company. (4) I have added the photo to the "cup of Joe" page on Wiktionary, which is further help to the Company and also explains the term 'Joe' in the sign (it isn't a reference to the person, or the person's name, he isn't called Joe or probably not, it's a reference to the contents of the cup in front of him, a cup of Joe, which explains why the person doesn't have a glass of juice in front of him but a cup) and if you delete the photo here I expect you will be deleting it from Wiktionary as well, which isn't a very nice thing to do, is it. (5) I suggest also you (a) go to the Google search engine and (b) then hit the Images button on the Google search engine page, and then (c) type in 'Joe and the Juice' and then (d) see how many examples of the same sign come up and then (e) count them - dozens! Probably hundreds! It is laughable to suppose someone is going to come running to Wikimedia Commons complaining about their sign being visible here when it's visible in hundreds of other places acrooss the internet and visible on other photos on Wikimedia Commons already and corporations want all the publicicity they can get. (6) I suggest you stop running around looking for works to delete which no one else is bothered about, which gets contributors' backs up (this is the second time you have done this to me - the last time was about a picture in the V&A). Were Joe and the Juice to have a problem with my photo being here (I have told them it is here and they didn't reply, so we can assume they couldn't care less) then they could complain and then you could delete it at that stage, you don't need to take action now. (7) I have stopped bothering contributing to Wikimedia Commons because of this. (8) Stop being a fussy kraut. Colin McLaughlin (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin McLaughlin: please stop with your racist slurs. Günther Frager (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a racist slur. kraut means cabbage. Stop being a fussy cabbage. Colin McLaughlin (talk) Colin McLaughlin (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not permissible under the restrictions of UK FOP for 2D works. This is perhaps regrettable, but it's how things are.
I doubt if this would be permissible on WP (which is different from hosting here) under fair use either. The article is on the worldwide chain, not the UK branches. If this is a UK logo, that wouldn't be significant enough to a worldwide article. If it's a worldwide logo, it could be photographed in a country outside the UK where FOP rules are freer.
ECHR 10 doesn't restrict your ability to call anyone a cabbage. ECHR 17 might, as Glimmerveen & Hagenbeek found out. But nor do these restrict Commons' ability to block you for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daecheong Middle School 2015.jpg

[edit]

South Korea does not have freedom of panorama KimYubin (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Limoges Cercle Saint-Pierre.svg

[edit]

Uploader is not the copyright holder of this file. – Sbaio (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant here?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:QuidditchCanada Official Logo-01.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be CC-BY-SA-4.0, as this was the former logo for an organization. Natg 19 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jules-Joseph Lefebvre signature.webp

[edit]

Duplicate William C. Minor (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destroyed building in Lebedyn, 2022-03-07.jpg

[edit]

Apparently, AI-generated image Bestalex (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The given camera location is bogus. Google Maps locates it somewhere in an agricultural field. Nakonana (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the front of the building is illuminated at night even though the street light is behind the building, and despite all the destruction around the building. Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep couple of ruzzians calling a fake, no actual evidence of it. --LeeMarx (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the paradox lighting of the scene and the missing EXIF data. The city was shelled but the electric infrastructure remained unscathed and they still have the resources to illuminate buildings at night? They are not running on emergency generators? And isn't it tactically questionable to illuminate buildings at night? This makes the buildings more visible and thus turns them into an easy target for further shelling. Why would Ukraine do this? And is the uploader a war photographer or why are they traveling all over Ukraine's war zone to upload a single photo of each location while removing all EXIF data from their photos and giving nonsense coordinates for the camera location? And why do all their uploads have weirdly curved buildings/windows/doors etc. or some other issues? Nakonana (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify the location/building? If so, then this deletion nomination would turn into an obvious "keep" vote. Nakonana (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destroyed Russian armor in Irpin.png

[edit]

Apparently, AI-generated image Bestalex (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Mirmakhmudovasamira (talk · contribs)

[edit]

per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama/Asia#Uzbekistan. some of them redundant or possible duplicate images. also, i excluded interior of museum(check his uploads). lastly, please wait for this DR. lots of images, doenst need to rush.

modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 09:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łowicz 2023 36 Graces Church Jesus Painting.jpg

[edit]

Copyright owner do now allow use in social media and modifications must be pre-approved. Thuresson (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This extra clause is obviously contrary to the terms of the license. The authors contacted us via VTR - so let's wait if they accept necessary amendments to their extra clause. Polimerek (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although as the 'author' I am not involved in the 'VTR process' and do not know what "necessary amendments" have been proposed to the artist's "extra clause", is it possible that the requirements of this "extra clause" could be accommodated by extending the "Permissions" of the 'author' to the 'artist'? Thanks for your advice on this --SM:!) (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as it is "faithfull photocopy" of 2D work - photographer has in fact no extra creative input to this work, so the copyright solely belongs to authors of the original work. They have just accepted removal the part of the extra clause which was contrary to the terms of the licence and also sent their non-conditional agreement to CC By-SA 4.0 license. VRTS I have just accepted permission for “File:Łowicz 2023 36 Graces Church Jesus Painting.jpg” under ticket:2024102610000281. --Polimerek (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt follow-up in this matter, licensing clarification and acceptance of the artist's permission which presumably will lead to the removal of the deletion tag --SM:!) (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson: Given the artist has now removed the specified caveat can you please now remove the deletion tag - thank you! --SM:!) (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request hereby withdrawn. Thuresson (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem.jpg

[edit]

wrong date, wrong source, wrong author. copyright violation? Xocolatl (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party photos hosted on weather.gov 2024-10-28

[edit]

These images were all sourced from webpages of the US National Weather Service but are the work of third-party photographers.

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

  • a process used for a time by the NWS Sioux City regional office that placed photos taken by the public into the public domain as a term of submisison applied to all third party images across all of weather.gov
  • the wording of the general site disclaimer on weather.gov that says "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise" means "noted with a formal copyright notice" (and ignoring the wording later in the disclaimer that goes on to say "Third-party information and imagery are used under license by the individual third-party provider. [...] Please contact the third-party provider for information on your rights to further use these data/products.")

An extensive review of this rationale in 2024 revealed that:

  • the NWS has had multiple, conflicting processes for public image submissions over the decades, some running concurrently by different regional offices (examples). Some of these processes made release into the public domain a condition of submission, others did not, and some were ambiguous. In practice, we can almost never link a particular image to any particular submission process.
  • in every one of several dozen cases investigated, individual photographers and third-party organizations had not released their work into the public domain when they submitted it for the NWS to use, and still asserted their rights over their images.(examples) This indicates that either the site general disclaimer is not intended to be interpreted the way that uploaders to the Commons have interpreted it over the years, or that this interpretation is correct, but that NWS employees have applied notices to images so very inconsistently over the years as to render the disclaimer completely unreliable.

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 obtain permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, to expedite this process (and because throughout this review period, the people arguing most strenuously for retention have been remarkably reticent to actually ask photographers about the copyright status of their images), I have approached every one of the creators I have been able to identify.

Number File Basis of identification Contact VRT ticket Comments
1027-1 File:A tornado near Fort Stockton on June 2, 2023.jpg Confirmed: photographer confirms that the photo is theirs and that they retain the copyright. Stopped responding September 25 when I asked about their willingness to release under a free license ticket:2024102610000799
1027-2 File:June 2023 North Antelope Rochelle Mine tornado.png Confirmed: image is a still from a video posted on the creator's X stream the day after the event. FWIW, in the thread that follows, someone local to the area informs the creator that they were mistaken about their location when they shot the video. The videographer agrees, but the NWS clearly didn't catch this and still posted it as being shot at Antelope. The thread also contains multiple media outlets asking permission to use the footage, and the videographer confirming that they are the sole owner of it. Emailed September 12; no response ticket:2024102710001965
1027-3 File:EF4 Keota, Iowa tornado 2023 (1).jpg Confirmed: image is a still from a video posted on the creator's X stream the day after the event. Messaged via social media on September 12; no response ticket:2024102710002017
1027-4 File:An EF1 tornado over Baca County, Colorado on June 23, 2023.jpg Confirmed: image found on photographer's Facebook two days after the event. Messaged via social media on September 3; no response ticket:2024102710002222
1027-5 File:May 24 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado by Haverfield.jpg Confirmed: image found on photographer's X stream two days after the event. Messaged via social media on September 3; read; no response ticket:2024102710002286
1027-6 File:Benkelman NE tornado May 26, 2021.jpg Confirmed: photographer contacted by email, confirms owning the rights (and owns the media company that first published this) Stopped responding when asked about releasing under a free license ticket:2024091210003958
1027-7 File:2020aug-derecho-Cedar-Rapids-IA-tree-carnage.jpg tentative match with journalist with same uncommon name Messaged via social media on September 3; no response ticket:2024102710003196
1027-8 File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Cedar-Rapids-Iowa.jpg Broadcast meteorologist with uncommon name working in same city where this photo was taken Messaged via social media on August 31; no response ticket:2024102710003258
1027-9 File:2020aug-derecho-damage-Tama-County-Iowa.jpg Tentatively confirmed: professional photographer contacted via their website; "believes" this to be one of their images Stopped responding September 18 when asked about releasing under a free license ticket:2024102710003294
1027-10 File:Gabriel Garfield photograph of the 2013 Moore EF5 tornado.jpg Confirmed: photographer messaged via social media, confirms owning the rights Stopped responding September 18 when asked about releasing under a free license ticket:2024102710003276

We do not have any evidence that any of these images are available under a free license and we cannot host them here. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go through these one at a time please? Thank you. ChessEric (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that help you? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard for me to vote for all of them at once. It’s more of a personal preference since it’s hard for me to understand large things as once. ChessEric (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I notice a lot of people stop responding when you ask about releasing the image under a free license. Could people think it's a scam of some kind? Are you mentioning creative commons? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is difficult to interpret. However, we can get some idea of people's reactions from the folks who respond in the negative. You don't see those on these mass deletion requests, because as soon as I've been getting an explicitly negative response, I've been opening a specific DR for that specific image itself. So the spread of responses you're seeing (for example) above is skewed to "stopped responding". You can see a collection of explicitly negative responses here that might give some insight into your question.
The fact that we've been hosting their work without permission in the first place seems to upset some people. Others have expressed regret but rely on their photography as an income and don't want to give anything away.
I mention the Creative Commons in the second or third message, depending on how quickly we establish that I'm communicating with the right person. A couple of people have wanted more details about the license itself, which I provided.
I also speculate that the dense, legalese wording of our licensing template probably looks offputting and suspicious to some people. I mean, put yourself in their shoes: some random stranger emails you or messages you on Facebook asking about a photo you took years and years ago -- obviously, they've tracked you down somehow. Then they ask about copyright and licenses and about signing some mysterious, legal-looking document. At least one person I was emailing was unaware that they even owned a copyright on the photos they took.
I've never had anyone actually respond with an explicit accusation of a scam, but it's certainly possible and IMHO even likely that's what some people might be thinking.
Out of dozens and dozens of these inquiries I've sent out now over the last two months, only two people have been willing to release their work, and even then, in one case, VRT was not initially willing to accept their release and we had to jump through several more steps to get the license cleared. Most people aren't going to be willing to jump through all those hoops when there's literally no benefit to them whatsoever. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wonder if our procedures for sending permission are too complicated. It seems even some Commons users couldn't be bothered to go through the process for files they do own the copyrights to. A lot of deletion discussions go like this:
  1. Someone uploads what they claim to be their own work to Commons.
  2. The file is nominated for deletion because it has been previously published.
  3. The uploader says they are the copyright holder.
  4. The uploader is instructed to go to Commons:Volunteer Response Team and follow the directions there.
  5. *crickets*
And then the file gets deleted even though it is plausible that the uploader is the copyright holder. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete All per above. Although treat this as a conditional delete. Conditional to whether or not any of them respond. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:XBOX Plays Age of Empires IV - The Siege of Kiev Campaign Playthrough.webm

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jarnsax as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Video is a derivative work of a video game4 copyrighted by Microsoft. The provided license can only apply to the content authored by the licensor. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-12#Age_of_Empires_videos, snapshot by Wayback Machine offers a CC BY note to that video --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not the CC-BY license. I don't claim that it "itself" is invalid. It can only apply, though, to content that was owned by the person who licensed it.
    This video is a derivative work. It contains not only material created and owned by the "immediate author", but also material (the graphic elements of the game itself) that is copyrighted by Microsoft. We do not have a license from Microsoft for that material (which was presumably used by the "immediate author" under fair use, as the video as a whole is clearly commentary and transformative). That doesn't help us, though.
    Since the included copyrighted (and unlicened) material is obviously not incidental, hosting it on Commons is a copyvio. The video would need to be redacted (which would make it pointless). Jarnsax (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, from skimming the prior related DRs, I don't see this as an issue that was discussed. This is an issue with the content of the specific video, not with the "validity" of the CC-BY license given at the source. The author of this specific video licensed content they don't own. Jarnsax (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that I am misunderstanding the situation, and that this video is actually being licensed under CC-BY by Microsoft itself, here. That is extremely unlikely, however, as by doing so they would be licensing all of the content in the video under that license. It seems extremely unlikely that Microsoft has intentionally released parts of the actual game (that are included in this video) under that license, since it would allow competitors to clone them. Jarnsax (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is complicated, but I get the point, sounds reasonable :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed through the videos by AoE, are there videos with the similar/same problem? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think it's most likely that the CC-BY license is actually "from" whatever ad agency Microsoft hires to run their social media accounts.
The key thing to keep in mind is that any video like this (that shows software) is a derivative work, and essentially a series of screenshots. Read Commons:Screenshots#Software (which specifically uses Microsoft as an example of "not ok").
My feeling is that videos like File:Age of Empires II- DE - Lords of the West - AVAILABLE NOW.webm are okay. The license pretty clearly seem to apply to the video "as a whole," which is basically an advertisement... it's inherently a "work" in and of itself. While it does show bits of the game, it's in no way "about" the bits that it shows. They are just incidental. You could substitute any or all of them for different bits of the game, or pan them differently, and while the result might not be as good artistically, none of individual changes would really make any difference. It's totally a judgement call as to where this line falls, but IMO any DW that's essentially "about" the specific copyrighted content that it includes, or uses a specific bit of copyrighted content extensively is pretty unarguably "not ok" for Commons.
It's perfectly "legal" for a third party to make a video that includes such stuff, and freely license their video, as long as they meet the requirements of fair use. An example off the top of my head would be a video teaching how to do something with a specific program. That content just isn't ok on Commons if the underlying work itself isn't free or freely licensed. Jarnsax (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to berate all this, but since it is complicated, an egregious counterexample. If I happen to be wearing a t-shirt that has a copyrighted logo on it, and I make a hour-long video giving a tour of some museum while wearing it, then it's pretty obviously incidental use. That I'm wearing a shirt is certainly relevant to the video, but.... the legal criteria would be w:de minimis. Jarnsax (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a more pointed example. If I use a free web browser to make a video showing how to use Google, I don't need a license for the thumbnails of copyrighted content that Google shows me.... not only are they incidental, but Google won that lawsuit. :) Jarnsax (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NHS Lewisham and Greenwich Trust logo.png

[edit]

Low resolution, poor quality PNG version of a logo now available in SVG version here, with the correct right-aligned text. No outstanding transclusions for this low quality file. Elshad (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Video Shows Lava Erupting from La Palma Volcano.webm

[edit]

""AP/Exclusive video courtesy of TV Canarias" Prototyperspective (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in Category:Buildings in Costa Rica

[edit]

No FOP in Costa Rica, per COM:FOP Costa Rica. Copyright in Costa Rica lasts the author's life + 70 years (COM:COSTA RICA), and none of these buildings are older than 70 years (year between parentheses). These buildings are still within copyright and these files are copyright violations.
Clarifying edit: The year between parenthesis refers to the year construction ended.

--Rubýñ (Scold) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Central park condominio.jpg

[edit]

FOP in Costa Rica is non-commercial only, per COM:FOP Costa Rica. Copyright in CR lasts 70 a.p.m.a, per COM:Costa Rica, and construction for the buildings in this photo started just 15 years ago in 2009, per satellite imagery from that year. These buildings are copyrighted. Rubýñ (Scold) 23:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Збережена плиточка.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Alachuckthebuck as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: CSD F10 (personal photos of or by non-contributors) アンタナナ 23:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this photo is the only available photo of original tiles from the historical building. yes, there are some feet there visible, of the protographer themselves it seems. but rather than speedy delete a useful image, one can crop it (one can also argue that with feet one can better understand the size of the tiles) --アンタナナ 23:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are those the historic tiles? They look modern to me. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 00:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak  Delete per nom. Yann (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It is photo of tiles in historical building, and human legs are needed to underastand what size of tiles (for comparison). This photo may be useful for article about this building. We have many photos of tiles in buildings of Lviv: Category:Floor tiles in Lviv.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/10/27&oldid=979845065"