Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

February 25

File:FINALLY.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 DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not encyclopedic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:44, 25 February 2017 (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:CueFile.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 as G7 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal image Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete. Eleazar~enwiki (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2017 (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:ChrisLeonidou.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 as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP placed PROD tag requesting deletion and claiming to be uploader, as we have no way of tying it to the original account I'm sending it to FFD. Unencyclopedic anyways. — Train2104 (t • c) 04:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now logged in under the original account and would have marked it for speedy deletion, I believe it meets the criteria as the only substantial edits have been made by me, with the others made by bots for admin purposes and you to bring it to the attention of this page. Crest of London ^(T|C|A) 05:15, 25 February 2017 (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:Ornate ouece at Albergo d'Italia with Caraffa Statue.jpeg

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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused, strange coloring, no encyclopedic use FASTILY 10:32, 25 February 2017 (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:Alaska-district-judges.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: relisted on 2017 March 10. czar 18:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alaska-district-judges.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:Smerconish CNN.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author David S. Holloway per metadata, evidence needed if this is the uploader. Uploader has had several previous uploads deleted for lack of permission [1]. January (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright. Image is a professional profile photo used on the subject's about page on CNN --Whpq (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2017 (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:Smerconish On Air.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely own work, relatively low resolution image with no metadata. Uploader has had several previous uploads deleted for lack of permission [2]. January (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2017 (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:GAZ M20 Pobeda chassis (1946).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. Replaceable fair use—see extended rationale below. czar 18:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is being used in an image gallery. There is no sourced commentary about this image or its purported use in the article so it fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to show its unibody construction, which is similar to Opel Kapitan. This is the image I could find, and it is very low-res. Mikus (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no discussion about the car's unibody construction in the article. And even if there were, you would need to explain why it is important to have this image to to explain the concept. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The article states: "the front suspension and, partially, the unitized body were influenced by the 1938 Opel Kapitän." Meaning, they studied the Opel - the Soviets took completed vehicles and equipment to Russia after WWII - and they reused production techniques to build a frame that while has a different shape, has the same concept: main unibody with front longitudinal beams stamped separately and then attached to the main body. There are documents proving this, which I did not elaborate on. Having image is important because it SHOWS the commonality. I also uploaded the Opel's unibody frame, which you deleted. I am going to re-upload it. As to this image, please KEEP. Mikus (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikus, a note on closure here, in case it's unclear—WP has a non-free content policy in which non-free images can only be used when it is impossible to get a free use version of an image. Additionally, non-free images are only to be used when it would be a detriment to the reader to not have a visualization. I can picture what unibody means based on the text, but there is nothing specific about the design that necessitates that we use a non-free image to show it. It should be possible to procure a free use version of the same design, based on my understanding, and if it isn't, the image would still need far more in-text justification within the article. czar 18:48, 10 March 2017 (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:Hanomag-1,3-liter-1939.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. Replaceable fair use. czar 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "[the] Hanomag 1,3 litre is the second German car to have unibody construction." is easily stated as text. Whpq (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may agree that this particular image is not the best - it is an ad, not an actual car, and it does not show unibody underneath it. My goal for adding an image of this car was to drive an idea that Hanomag did produce sophisticated designs for its time, because many including myself thought that the funny Komisbrot was the best they could do. I intend to still have an image of this car, but I will choose another one, a photo of a real vehicle. I wish I could find its unibody "X-ray" image. Mikus (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2017 (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:Volvo-PV444-chassis.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. Replaceable fair use. czar 18:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced discussion about this image that would establish the context needed to meet WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what it means: "there is no sourced discussion". Please, elaborate. The purpose is to show the unibody construction, which is similar to Hanomag 1,3 litre. Mikus (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no discussion about the car's unibody construction in the article. And even if there were, you would need to explain why it is important to have this image to to explain the concept. -- Whpq (talk)

Again, like with the other article, you are mistaken. The article states: "The PV444 was Volvo's first uni-body car. Its body structure was influenced by the 1939 Hanomag 1,3 litre, which was purchased and studied by Volvo engineers." Sadly, I could not yet find a similar image of the Hanomag's unibody structure. Volvo bought several Hanomag cars and studied them. Unibody construction was innovative for the late 1930-ies, early 1940-ies. Mikus (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2017 (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:PALPlus test card.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary about this test card to establish. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image establishes the fact that PALPlus is 16:9. Mikus (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That PALplus is 16:9 is adequately conveyed with the text in the article. There is no need to for a non-free image to do this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2017 (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:Satellite television system Ekran - a post stamp.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sourced commentary about this image. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Whpq (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't get the meaning of the phrase: "There is no sourced commentary about this image". The aforementioned TV satellite system is discussed in the article. Mikus (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image itself is essentially decorative. It's not needed to illustrate the section, and the image. It fails to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The lack of this stamp image does not detrimental to a reader's understanding of the history of television. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2017 (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:Mod tod file format.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments state "Source=JVC technical manuals, modified by me to reflect both standard definition and high definition video", so this would be a derivative of a copyrighted work. The uploader does not have the authority to release this in the public domain. Whpq (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is my own work. The information that the image is built upon, came from JVC manuals. Is this clearer? Mikus (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't just copy the manuals and add a bit of your own stuff, then that's fine. It wasn't clear from the the descriptions. Whpq (talk)

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:Canon 30F.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments states "This is a compilation of images from original Canon Instruction Manuals, modified for clarity and correctness" so this would be a derivative of a copyrighted work. Whpq (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2017 (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:T.B. Hunt bequest newspaper report 1928.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure which newspaper, therefore cannot determine copyright renewal. — Train2104 (t • c) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (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:Bojana Bobusic.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: withdrawn, the licenses in question were synchronized. XXN, 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own image, that is my own flickr account and I was the one who uploaded the photo. Keroks (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obvious evidence that User:Keroks is the same with flickr user Kevin Lim. XXN, 14:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed both the Priscilla Hon photo and this photo to Public Domain Keroks (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thak you so much Keroks. Everything is fine now. Updated licenses and transferred file to Commons.

Request withdrawn (per relicensing on flickr). XXN, 12:48, 27 February 2017 (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:Priscilla Hon.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: withdrawn, the licenses in question were synchronized. XXN, 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the Bojana Bobusic image, this is my own image, that is my own flickr account and I was the one who uploaded the photo.Keroks (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn per above (relicensing on flickr). XXN, 12:48, 27 February 2017 (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:Alex Postcard.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting the {{PD-old-100}} license. Without knowing author and/or the creation date it's not possible to keep this image on Wikipedia as free. XXN, 21:39, 25 February 2017 (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:Zenger May 1993.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 as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper scan, unlikely to be own work. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons? Can this be moved appropriately, so it can be used to illustrate an article about the newspaper itself? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Hammer of Thor: this is a derivative work; you don't have the permission to relicense the content of original work (newspaper) under a free license, because they are by default copyrighted. Such files can be kept only locally according to fair-use policy (they will not survive at Commons). XXN, 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Agreed that makes sense. I'm unsatisfied with quality also. And I think the article would be better illustrated by a shot of just the newspaper's logo, which more likely meets fair use of that. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (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:Revolutionary Times 1998.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: tagged as needing permission—one week from March 5th to fix. czar 22:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper scan, unlikely to be own work. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons? Can this be adjusted, appropriately, so it can be used to illustrate the article about an organization that published the newsletter? -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As above, derivative work. XXN, 12:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It sounds like I should obtain permission from the organizers of the group, to use this, which shouldn't be difficult to do. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do this ASAP. Until then, this is a textbook case of missing evidence of permission and I have tagged it as such. -FASTILY 11:22, 5 March 2017 (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:LegalMarijuanaNowLogo.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: relisted on 2017 March 8. czar 22:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LegalMarijuanaNowLogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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:LegalMarijuanaNow.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: withdrawn, converted to non-free — Train2104 (t • c) 19:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work. — Train2104 (t • c) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original creator and sole owner of this jpeg image, created in adobe photoshop. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relicense to non-free logo as likely owned by the Legal Marijuana Now Party. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2017 (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:TheCanvas.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: Deleted. Owning a copy of a publication does not grant you the copyright to its contents. -FASTILY 11:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be own work. — Train2104 (t • c) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original creator and sole owner of the newsletter pictured in this scan. I also created the scan. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2017 (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:AndrewLang160.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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A personal photo, probably. Unused - out of project scope. XXN, 22:11, 25 February 2017 (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.