Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Didrikson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MachoCarioca (notify | contribs).

• According to this, this is an image from press agency Getty Images that Brittanica spent some money to use. There's nothing fair in our free use of it. Damiens.rf 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously is not a 'Getty Image' original, but a IOC original. The use is fair because the image is about a dead individual, there isn't 'free' (hahaha free about copyrights? And about the subject's licenses to 'comercial' use? Are you kidding?) images about her, and this is a non-profit organization, Brittanica is not. You can find this image anywhere on the Internet. MachoCarioca (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, seems to pass our NFCC. As the image was taken so long ago, I am not persuaded that it interferes with the original market role of the original copyright work.
  talk) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It does interferes, since Getty Images is still making money by licensing this image to encyclopedias like Britannica. --Damiens.rf 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFCC#2 applies if the use of this image "is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". This 15 KB version of this image is already available at the Brittanica website. That means that anyone who wants to use it without permission (with or without the assertion of fair use) is already able to do so. Reproducing the image here does not add any new opportunities for re-use that were not already present. It appears to pass the remaining NFC criteria, so keep. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Silly. Anyone who wants to use it without permission must have a strong fair use case or is a criminal. And any encyclopedia who wants to use it can do so by paying Getty Images their well deserved fee. --Damiens.rf 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, OK. Those are moral and legal arguments. But your deletion rationale appears to be
      WP:NFCC#2. How is this use of this image "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media"? Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The market role of this image is that it can be licensed to illustrate articles (in books, magazines, encyclopedias, wepages, etc.) about
        Babe Zaharias. This is why this image is valuable to Getty Images. Every book, magazine or encyclopedia article or webpage about Babe Zaharias needing an image is a marketing opportunity for Getty Image on this photo. When use it to illustrate our article about Babe Zaharias for free, we're depriving them from this marketing opportunity. --Damiens.rf 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Ridiculous, sorry. You're givin a weird personal interpretation to the policies. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's extremely unlikely that the copyright was ever registered for this photograph (as that was a rare practice at the time), and even less likely that the copyright was renewed (which was required at the time). Getty frequently claims copyright for PD images, annoyingly. The image was reprinted in a recent book without attribution, making it even more likely to be PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quadell's findings. Just because an image is in use by another entity doesn't make it less applicable for fair use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean "Quadell's findings" or "Quadell's wishful thinking"? --Damiens.rf 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My.php?image=dsc00234ly4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick123 07 (notify | contribs).

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use, possible copyright violation, horrible filename. —Bkell (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My.php?image=2039858573a3152413572b8lk0.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skarolynk (notify | contribs).

• Unused personal photo, unlikely to find an encyclopedic use, horrible filename. —Bkell (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portorricensisve7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Portorricensis (notify | contribs).

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My.php?image=paypalbannerje9.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kingdevil (notify | contribs).

• Personal banner used only on User:Kingdevil, which has been listed for deletion (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingdevil). Also, horrible filename. —Bkell (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My.php?image=emilyluein2007qn1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheDorkWithTheShoes (notify | contribs).

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use, horrible filename. —Bkell (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My.php?image=screenshot1rs1.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhancoc7 (notify | contribs).

• Unused, not sure what this is illustrating, horrible filename. —Bkell (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as

File:Saint-Étienne-du-Mont.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mok9 (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mok9 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as

File:Notredameparis.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mok9 (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete

Both replaced by File:Saint-Étienne-du-Mont.JPG due to incorrect names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mok9 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smokey joe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mok9 (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete

Uneeded file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mok9 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:B00d1fjt 512 288.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MachoCarioca (notify | contribs).

• Beautiful non-free pictured copied from news web-site BBC. Damiens.rf 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fair-use rationale meets
  WP:NFCC. Not sure how the fact that it's copied from a non-commercial news site is relevant. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wikipedia can been as a web-eyeballs concurrent of BBC News site. If you can read an article about "John Akii-Bua" with nice pictures here, why would you care to pay a visit to BBC.co.uk? --Damiens.rf 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you're saying. "[C]an been as a web-eyeballs concurrent of BBC News site"? And what's the rationale for deletion, per policy? Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Damiens means that we could be seen as a competitor of the BBC, so (in his view) this would fair NFCC#2. I see his point, but I disagree. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this pall Damien do not undestand what are free images and fair use images. This is the second one that he tries to delete. His reasons are pure joke. This must have an end.MachoCarioca (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second? Second today. Some of his noms are good; many, like this one, are incomprehensibly bad. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the image is being used to bring attention to (and sell) a video documentary. It's not licensed for a fee. I don't see a NFCC#2 problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gotta concur on this one with Quadell. The image's use is to sell a video. Using it here doesn't harm that goal and, in fact, helps them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eanna Cullen Jan 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Robinbaxterhunt (notify | contribs).

• Orphan Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Feydey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hightower.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerryreese17 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, and as almost all images uploaded by this user are copyvios, the "self-made" claim is far from certain. Mosmof (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN1625.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bhirmiz (notify | contribs).

• description and license are for previous image at this location. This version of the image was never used. No idea what it is. Uploader deleted many of his other image uploads. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: - Delete - replaceable with a free alternate (text) without significantly impairing reader's understanding. I am not convinced that this is a public domain image. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zuma_Encrypted_Fax.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mulaudzi8 (notify | contribs).

• Replaceable with plain text PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with attempts to censor this crucial document. Most people don't believe that this fax could have said such a thing, so to demonstrate it with an original copy is essential to demonstrating Zuma's involvement in arms deal corruption.--Mulaudzi8 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The facsimile image, as opposed to plaintext, is important to convince the reader on this matter of relevance to the Joseph Zuma article, and the issue of corruption in SA in general. Attempt to delete with such a flimsy reason seems hard to justify given its relevance. mukerjee (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, As per mukerjee. Use of the original is vital to give impact. Izzy (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This image should be kept in the form in which it is presented for the proper context. Valadius (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is purely a question of copyright, fair use and replaceability. All the points above about it being crucial to demonstrate Zuma's involvement in arms deal corruption are irrelevant - and in any case it is not Wikipedia's job to demonstrate that, any more than it is Wikipedia's job to demonstrate his innocence. Zaian (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay
  talk
  ) 18:16, 10 May 2009

• • You misunderstand my point. No-one said this document has been released into the public domain. If it had, it would not be subject to copyright, and it could be used freely. If it is subject to copyright (which by the way hasn't been established above), then its use is subject to Wikipedia's fair use rules. Yes, those rules (and copyright laws) apply to "every single document or photo". That's the nature of rules and laws. Personally, I'd like to see this image kept. I just don't think that any of the arguments above are valid claims of fair use. Zaian (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a copyrighted image, which can obviously be adequately described in plain text (since this image is of text). Some above argue that the actual document is needed to prove that it's authentic, but on Wikipedia we do not use non-free images to prove anything. They are only used to convey information, and in this case that information can be provided without violating anyone's copyright. I'll also point out that this image is much more likely than most non-free images to lead to the Wikimedia Foundation getting sued. We can link to this image published elsewhere, but we can't host it on our servers. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per
  talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. This is not a copyrighted image. First of all, the original is an e-mail memorizing an agreement. It is not a creative work, and would not be eligible for copyright protection in the first place. Second, the document was admitted in a court of law as an exhibit in a case, releasing it into public domain.. The court exhibit is a government record which is also exempt from copyright protection. There may be other arguments against this document, but copyright violation is not one of them. 216.157.197.218 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first argument, about this not being a copyrighted document could be correct. However, I'm think your second argument, about being 'admitted in a court of law as an exhibit in a case' making it public domain probably isn't correct. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there are wording choices in this document that are absolutely eligible for copyright, e.g. "I have been able (at last) to meet with..." I don't believe any court of law would conclude this is ineligible, and many similar documents have been declared copyrighted in the past. Also, courts often exhibit copyrighted works, and the act of exhibiting them does not remove copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regarding copyright: The first reason for 216.157.197.218 saying that this is not a copyrighted image should settle the copyright element of the argument for deletion. Thus, it is not necessary to rely on 216.157.197.218's second reason - which may or may not be true. Fair use: The 'non-fair use' argument is only valid if it is copyrighted, which it is not. But even if it were subject to copyright, it is clear that using an image of on page of a big set of documents submitted in evidence is fair use if it illustrates encyclopeadic text. Even if only used to illustrate, it must be fair use since it is not a gratuitous replication of the whole set of document, but limited use. Public domain: Although this document has not been released into the public domain by its author, it cannot be doubted that this document is in fact in the public domain - since it has been admitted as evidence in court. Relevance: The argument that quoting the text of the document makes the inclusion of the image superfluous does not hold water, as per Rezashah4. Zingi (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No number of "keep" votes will remove the legal copyright on this document. The fact that e-mails are subject to copyright is a fact, verified in case law, and no consensus on the page will change that. Calling it "public domain" is simply incorrect. It's true that "fair use" would be an applicable legal defense for reprinting this document, but it's irrelevant. Non-free images must pass our

  non-free content criteria, and many images legally pass "fair use" but fail our strict criteria. If a non-free image can be replaced by text and provide the same information, then we can't use it, period. That's also not up for debate, unless you want to change our policy on non-free content in general. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• • In terms of section 2 the South African Copyright Act 78 of 1978, which governs South African copyright law, only the following works are eligible for copyright, provided they are original works: literary works, musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films, sound recordings, broadcasts, programme-carrying signals, published editions, and computer programs. The image is of a facsimile (not of an email as suggested above, although nothing turns on this distinction) with content not falling into any of these categories. There is therefore no legal copyright in this document. South African law is relevant, I would suggest, since this document was made available in South Africa through court processes. Note also that the image was widely published in South African newspapers, and no publicised legal action was taken against these newspapers – which seems to indicate that the risk of legal action due to publication on Wikipedia (one of the reasons for the
    non-free content policy,) is very low - Which stands to reason, since no copyright exists in the image in any case. Zingi (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete The existence of this document is notable, its contents are notable, but an image of it is not notable. This isn't the place to make a criminal case. Similarly, we don't use scanned copies of newspapers or books. Likewise, this one should be removed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary Allan - best I Ever Had.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Publichall (notify | contribs).

• The original version of this image was the same image minus the text (i.e., a placeholder used by iTunes), and the text really doesn't mesh with the image well (it's not dithered like the rest of the image is) so I think it's shopped. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, it isn't. iTunes inadvertently used the same image as a placeholder (when they don't have the actual artwork for an album/single, they just use a random picture of the artist instead) but it was in fact the same image. I found this image on an ebay auction for the item (seller had 100% feedback). The "dithering" is caused by scanner settings which wouldn't affect the monochrome text. Publichall (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've uploaded a new version at
  MCA Nashville's website, at this page. Radiant chains (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Okay, that has me convinced. Sorry for the accusation, Publichall, but now this version can just be deleted as unused. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.