Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Files for deletion
< August 15 August 17 >

August 16

File:Radio Free Sarawak logo.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radio Free Sarawak logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bobk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unlinked locally, PNG version available at Commons:File:Radio_Free_Sarawak_logo.png. Cube00 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Anthology cover collage.jpg

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. TLSuda (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthology cover collage.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GPHemsley (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Homemade(?) artwork using copyright material. Artwork created by someone other than the copyright holder to make a statement about an individual or individuals, and not relevant to the article. Dinkytown talk 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As stated in the article and the fair use rationale, the image is a re-creation of the collage created by Klaus Voormann for The Beatles Anthology. It demonstrates how the album artwork for each of the three albums forms one continuous illustration. It is a significant symbol that is repeated throughout the material it represents, and there is no alternative to its representation. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:24, 20 August 2014 (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.

File:Hearts XP.png

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 "With free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" as defined by

(ʞlɐʇ) 23:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Themodernizer (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log
).

This was previously deleted after being nominated for deletion for the following reason: "Used against

WP:NFCC#3 because we already have File:Hearts 7.png." Following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 8, the discussion is relisted because of the previously limited participation in the deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination and I am neutral.  Sandstein  10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Hi. If you keep ignoring the condemning words, well, yes, your analysis would be right. Except NFCC #1 mentions replacement of the image with text alone. Dogmaticeclectic practically demonstrated above that it is possible. NFCC #8 says signficantly increase the understanding, not showing the changes. (Show the changes with text alone.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said anything about improvements?
    WP:NFCC is a stringent policy that is made because of dire need, not to make Wikipedia more fun or more beautiful. NFCC violation is actually an avenue of speedy deletion with {{di-fails NFCC}}. In addition, unlike what you said, I don't see a permission registered with OTRS system; but again, as long as it is non-free it make no difference. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The actual permission is here. Given that we do have such unequivocal permission to use the image, deleting it doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia in the slightest. I believe the pretext for wanting to delete it is because some Wikipedians find non-free content ideologically unsound.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pretext to deleting it is that the foundation mandate that the project is based as far as practical to use free content, and that non-free content is only used in limited circumstances (Foundation resolution on such). The resolution requires projects wishing to use non-free content implement an exemption doctrine policy. EN wikipedia have that in the form of
    WP:NFCC, in order to be in line with the foundations requirements that policy needs to be followed. That you disagree with the foundation about the basis of the project which they sponsor is not a reason to ignore it. It's been suggested previously if you aren't happy with the basis of the project as heavily favouring free content, you try and get the foundation to change it's view, I guess you've had no luck so far. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per the many points raised above. If there is third party coverage discussing the evolution of the look of this particular software item, then perhaps there is a case to be made, however I've yet to see one. The differences seem trivially describable (and indeed have been described multiple times). --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree entirely with
    WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per above, this file fails NFCC#8 and #3a.
    talk) 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete As I said in the closure review, it was deleted correctly. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 & #3. There may be a possibility that the text could eventually support its inclusion, but I see no such possibly now, or in the future. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons.--ɱ (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The screenshots are clearly from different versions of the game, which only serves to illustrate it better. And I feel the Hearts 7 version is very cluttered compared to the Hearts XP version. Aren't there also other software articles on Wikipedia with multiple screenshots? Windows Hearts is a very notable game, given that it is found on so many Windows installations, so I see the need for screenshots of multiple versions. JIP | Talk 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within the the general acceptance of the NFCC rules as they stand , we should try to interpret them in a reasonable fashion, not the most extreme possible fashion, or the loosest possible fashion.. Given the special nature of the Microsoft license, which permits most of the likely uses of the image, and does not restrict commercial use, I think it would be reasonable to make an exception here. We have the right to do so: tho a limitation on NHCC is an outside rule from the WMF, the exact rules on their use are our own: since we can make such interpretations, we can also make exceptions to them. Such an exception of course requires consensus, and I think we have consensus it would be helpful to do so in this specific case. Doing so does not upset the general NFCC rules. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe that the use of the image on the Hearts page meets all of the NFCC criteria. In contrast to comments from above, I don't think that words can adequately convey the difference between the two versions of the software, this is best done through including both images to give the reader a visual indicator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Merely my opinion: This image has a "free" licence so NFCC considerations do not apply. The licence is not completely free because it has restrictions.[1] However CC licences have restrictions, for example "... if You Reproduce ... the Work ... You must not ... modify ... in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's ... reputation."[2] The Microsoft licence is saying this in other words. The WMF resolution does not require a CC licence but a "free" one[3] citing this which allows for permissible restrictions. There seems to be nothing in Microsoft's restrictions that prevents its licence from being sufficiently "free". Thincat (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid you seem a little ill-informed about the scope of NFCC. NFCC applies to anything that is not "free content". "Free content" is defined as "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". (This screenshot's license grant, while generous, denies many of these.) You are saying CC is also restricted. That's right; and that is exactly why CC is sometimes forbidden in Wikipedia. Image uploaded under CC-NC and its derivations are eligible for speedy deletion under
    WP:CSD#F3
    .
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We do have permission to use this image, I see no reason to delete it. Ahmer Jamil KhanWho?Chat? 12:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't. The license tag, which tells you that we have Microsoft's permission, also reminds you that NFCC's permission is required too. (Or you can read the message like this: Yes, we do have author's permission to display the image but that's not enough.)
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's enough is a matter of opinion. I know it's fashionable to talk about NFCC#3 and NFCC#8 as if they were simple objective tests that can be passed or failed, but if you read them, they aren't. Read them. They're matters of discretion and judgment and they allow for shades of grey. If you think Ahmer Jamil Khan's view is wrong, then surely there's an onus on you to explain why your opinion that NFCC#3 and #8 are failed in this case should outweigh his view that they're passed. Isn't there? It would be nice if this FfD could move from contradiction to discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Marshall. It is the wrongest place to invoke discrete judgment because discrete judgment is the one thing that is overlooked. For one thing, both you and AJK ignored NFCC outright, let alone apply discrete judgment to it. But if discrete judgment is what you want, here it is: For a person who does not know what is a game of
    due weight. It is against discrete judgment to tell a person who doesn't know about the game itself that one of them uses dot as card indicator! Or to use something just because you can. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hello again. Thanks for confirming my statement with examples; I had faith in its accuracy. It appears off topic, but duly noted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (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.

File:Pat1908.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pat1908.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by 5shot (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Could be copied to Commons, but I don't see the point. Just a drawing from a random patent; nothing special or encyclopedic about it from what I can see. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a number of images uploaded by the same editor and used in this edit. None are in use anymore. They may have had some use back in 2006, but none serve any purpose now. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Mc at Work.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mc at Work.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dpetranker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the

Cronulla Sharks sports team. See User:Mchammerhead. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Mc Hammerhead and Razorback Jack.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mc Hammerhead and Razorback Jack.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mchammerhead (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This person appears to be the self-proclaimed "mascot" of the

Cronulla Sharks sports team. See the uploader's user page. As such, the picture is somewhat unencyclopedic. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Aliconazole chemical structure.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aliconazole chemical structure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Aliconazole.png on commons DMacks (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Alifedrine structural formula.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alifedrine structural formula.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alifedrine.png on commons. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Simpsons-Guy.jpg

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: Still a keep. --

(ʞlɐʇ) 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Simpsons-Guy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by StewieBaby05 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This still fails

WP:NFCC#8 - it can easily be described with words. Peter and Homer both have their own articles with images - there is no need for this one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I nominated it again because I didn't notice there were comments on the first one until it closed. I'm going to address them now - the image needs critical commentary to be justified. Right now it's just a picture of two people - and the keep votes on the first nomination are greatly overexaggerating its usefulness. It is clearly easy to picture two characters (who have articles with pictures) together. There is no justification for a fair use image that can easily be described by text. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to start another deletion discussion just because you didn't think to keep track of a deletion discussion that you started. Really, that's your fault for not paying attention. Your nomination then argued that it was "just a picture of two characters" but that was addressed 7 days before the discussion closed, so you had plenty of time to respond. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I agree, this person should not be able to renominate something that ended in KEEP. This is ridiculous. And the picture does illustrate two characters from two well known series getting together. Dream Focus 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please address how this meets
WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
No. You had time to discuss this a few days ago. The discussion ended in KEEP. This bad nomination should be closed. You aren't allowed to game the system. Dream Focus 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly gaming. Explain why you think it meets
WP:NFCC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
It shows a notable event, covered in the news media, of these two characters getting together. I just added a couple of reliable sources to the article its featured in that demonstrate this. [4] Dream Focus 13:02, 20 August 2014 (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.

File:111 wendy msellen.gif

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:111 wendy msellen.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfufan2005 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:03, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Butt Out scene.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butt Out scene.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfufan2005 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image being used as decoration. There is no critical commentary and there is also nothing here that absolutely requires a fair-use image. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:04, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Structural formula of alentemol.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Structural formula of alentemol.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Alentemol.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Chemical structure of acronine.png

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chemical structure of acronine.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RichardsonsRSC (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Un-needed and unused: lower quality (CHEM MOS) than File:Acronine.svg on commons. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Muhammad Junaid Chheenah.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muhammad Junaid Chheenah.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:26, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster INeverCry 20:29, 16 August 2014 (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.

File:Zaheer Ahmed.jpg

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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaheer Ahmed.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zaheer Ahmed Gujjar (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused personal image uploaded by blocked sockmaster - I've deleted the version on Commons INeverCry 20:32, 16 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_August_16&oldid=1140156777"