Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 27

File:Highway-424.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Represents a non-existent and unplanned freeway. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Related article is also at AFD. Reh man 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons Ontario Highway 24 's expansion section could use this map to show the section of Hwy24 between 401 and 403. And rename to File:OntHwy24between401n403.png; 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons per IP. mabdul 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is both a terrible quality map, and a non-vector diagram. I can whip out something using my base maps in about 15 seconds that will be more detailed, more accurate, include the rest of Highway 24 (why on earth would we have a map on a part of the road if we don't have a map on the whole road; and why would we need it if we did have that full map?), and be an svg file. Also, the IPs proposed name is long and unmanageable, Ontario 24 expansion.png would be a far better file name, but I endorse neither. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why just show this section? Easy, since it shows the zone of expansion proposed. Why not include the rest of 24? Well a second map with all of 24 would be great. Long name? Not really, your's is about the same length, mine is more descriptive, since it doesn't actually show construction (ie. expansion), just a highlighted road. This map already exists, unlike a hypothetical future map, so it should be transferred to commons. Commons seems to like have several different versions of things as well. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 05:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is used in various places as described in the AfD for the article Ontario Highway 424, so not really original research, just unreliable. The content isn't original research, since it's the trace of Hwy 24 between Hwy 401 and Hwy 403. How is it unneeded, since it clearly illustrates the stretch of highway proposed for upgrading? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (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:Charlestown High School.jpg[edit]

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No reason to transfer this one to commons because of the extremely low resolution of the shot and primary focus on the parking lot rather than the school itself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer orphaned. No sense acquiring a better one as it would be sent to be deleted by SchuminWeb anyways.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:13, 30 March 2011 (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:Scribner House 3.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as this are not works of the US Federal Government, and considering that the sign itself indicates that it was erected in 1980, it has not passed into the public domain on account of its age. The image fails fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 27 March 2011 (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:Ubisoft.svg[edit]

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 After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles. It has been replaced by this file: Ubisoft.png JuventiniFan (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace all instances of the .png with the .svg, as SVG is the preferred format for vector files/logos, then delete the .png version. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (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:Big5California.jpg[edit]

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 for failing WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. It is not necessary to actually see the group together to understand the concept, and as living people, free photos must be used if all we're doing is showing what the people look like. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of a meeting of five politicians, used in the article about that group. Each of the individuals is a living person and could thus be illustrated with a free image. A free photograph of their actual meeting might not be possible (as the uploader claims), but seeing the table and the way they sit around it is also not necessary for understanding the article. Hence fails NFCC#8 (as far as the meeting and institution is concerned) and NFCC#1 (as far as each individual is concerned). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the uploader, I would again note that whilst it would be possible to provide individual images of the five subjects shown, a free replacement of the Big Five would be impossible to provide, because photography is prohibited inside the Governor's office (except for photographs created by the Governor's office) and photographs of Big Five meetings are even rarer, as the only people allowed to enter Big Five meetings are the members of the Big Five, the Governor's Chief of Staff, and their guests. The influence of the Big Five is exercised collectively; action on various things like the state budget are impeded if the Big Five does not act together, so the Big Five must be illustrated as a group rather than individually. OCNative (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (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:Open Day at the Mills Observatory.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a scan from a not very old (1970s?) print publication or newspaper. Implausible GFDL-self claim. Also deletable for low quality and low information value, therefore listing it at FFD and not PUF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 27 March 2011 (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:Gary HannanMillsObservatory.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 27 March 2011 (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:DrJaroslavCisarmillsobs.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same case as above Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 27 March 2011 (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:BritishPOW.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The licence is not valid, (2) The photo does not show what the name says it shows. Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed licence on this file is not valid. It says that it is public domain "according to Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act, 1994 (translation) because it is a part (or whole) of these followings:

News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
Constitution and legislations
Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports
Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units"

But there is no evidence that any of these apply. The photo is not from a news website. The website it was taken from is http://terapongoad2116.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html It clearly is not covered by (2) or (3). (4) If an official source had been provided, then it might have been possible to claim (4) or (5), but that is not the case.

In addition the photo is not what it claims to be. The source website uses the photo to illustrate the Franco-Thai Conflict of 1940-41. Many people would consider a photo that claims to be one thing, but is actually another, to be a hoax.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like that is actually not the original version of the image (though it is probably where our editor took it from). A TinEye search finds another source. Unfortunately, the URL doesn't work, so TinEye must have found it in a cache or something - but examination shows the TinEye result has more coverage at the left and right edges than the other, and so must be more original. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a closer comparison shows this new one has less top and bottom coverage and has lost a lot of shadow detail, suggesting both are derivatives of an unknown original -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image was uploaded to justify a hoax, and it's going to be impossible to determine its actual copyright status. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article it was used in has now been deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2011 (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:Mirage 2000-5 Nancy - Ochey Air Base.jpg[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph (from non-commercial army presskit) of airplanes taking off for participation in the recent Libya war, uploaded under the rationale that we need an illustration of the "historical moment". But we don't. These airplanes look no different at this moment than at any other time. Seeing an image taken at this historical moment doesn't help to further understand the historical moment, because it doesn't convey any additional concrete information about it, over and above what any other photograph of the same type of aircraft would. The sense of immediacy conveyed by the knowledge that it's "from this historic moment" is merely a piece of symbolic gratification and irrelevant under NFC. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but re-upload would be acceptable if permission of the Webmaster Délégation à l’information et à la communication du ministère de la défense (DICoD) were received. Copyright condition regarding the website used as a source for this photo are on http://www.defense.gouv.fr/portail-defense/rubriques-complementaires/mentions-legales This states that "Any request for re-use video, pictures, graphic, illustration, illustrations and glossaries, and all editorial content produced for the editorial animation site should be directed to the following email address: [email protected]". This has not been complied with, so the image should be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Copyright condition state that "Non-commercial reuse, especially for educational purposes is permitted provided respecting the integrity of information and does not alter the meaning or the scope or application and to specify the source and the date of publication." (Original French: "La réutilisation non commerciale, notamment à des fins pédagogiques, est autorisée à la condition de respecter l’intégrité des informations et de n’en altérer ni le sens, ni la portée, ni l’application et d’en préciser l’origine et la date de publication.") ShipFan (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Military bases are highly controlled environments and free images of armed aircraft during combat operations are not reasonably likely to be found or created. This image was part of a press kit issued by the Ministère de la Défense for that reason. The image is also made available under a license that explicitly permits educational, personal, or otherwise non-commercial use. ShipFan (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The educational/non-commercial license is irrelevant here. In terms of our NFCC, its only effect would be to prevent a breach of NFCC2 (commercial opportunities), but in this case we are dealing with an NFCC#8 issue. About the rest of your argument, you have failed to address the point of the nomination: I'm not claiming we could easily create a replacement image taken during this same situation; I'm saying we don't need one, because the planes look the same as in any other situation (where free images can in fact be made). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please check out commons:COM:L. Wikimedia only allows licenses which allow for commercial reusage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not because I think it's replaceable, but because it is borderline with WP:NFCC#8. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator shows a very cavalier and highly dubitable attitude towards historical (and military) accuracy. Pictures of military aircrafts are not randomly exchangeable. Particular details from an actual operation has information value not provided from "peace time" pictures (or other conflicts for that matter; what if wikipedia used images from the Gulf War to illustrate the Iraq War?) In this case for example, it is informative to see the ordnance carried to perform a specific mission in the no fly zone over Libya (to wit as far as I can identify them, 3 drop tanks, 4 AASMs and 2 Matra Magics). ^walk victor falk^talk 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is relevant to the article that an airplane carried "3 drop tanks, 4 AASMs and 2 Matra Magics", then why don't you add that fact to the text: "An airplane seen departing for action over Libya was seen carrying 3 drop tanks, 4 AASMs and 2 Matra Magics <ref>[Insert reliable source of your choice here]</ref>". We still don't need to see an image to understand this, and without a textual source it's WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an example of what I may find interesting. Somebody else may find the use or non-use of desert pattern camouflage relevant. You cannot demand a reference for every possible way this picture might be interpreted. Sufficient is that it is a picture of aircrafts involved in the conflict and that replaceable free images are either not easily or completely unavailable. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC8 discussions aren't evaluated according to what this or that reader might find interesting, but according to concrete, identified, specific points that are demonstrably crucial for the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the details themselves that justify use, those are only examples of why it is better to use accurate images. What is historic per NFCC 8 is that French aircrafts are participating in the 2011 Libya military intervention and that the picture illustrates that historic fact, just as File:OuadiDoum.jpg is an historic illustration of the Ouadi Doum air raid. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this picture is not neccessary for the article. There are plenty of pictures of French airplanes. The fact that these were taking off prior to the operation holds no additional value to place it under the critieria needed to include a copyrighted image. Jolly Ω Janner 23:26, 3 April 2011 (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:Rizatriptan.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File already on commons by a different author Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Shadows Commons:File:Rizatriptan.png. --Leyo 14:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Leyo. Reh man 11:39, 31 March 2011 (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:11-COOH-THC.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

svg version of file on commons Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:41, 27 March 2011 (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:Anileridine.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better drawing on commons as svg file Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: File:Anileridine.svg is superior. --Leyo 14:06, 29 March 2011 (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:Hexacyclinol-grafe.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very similar file on commons commons:File:Hexacyclinol-grafe-rotated.png Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the original upon which several others are based (including commons:File:Hexacyclinol-grafe-oriented.png, which is in use in en:hexacyclinol). It's not used itself and is not required for licensing, but it's the one directly derived from the primary lit source (and similar to secondary-sources that cite it), so maybe important for non-chemists to be able to trace origins. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it should at least be moved to Commons. --Leyo 08:20, 28 March 2011 (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:JWH-019 structure.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File on commons by another author in svg format commons:File:JWH019.svg Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not really good with this subject, but if they really show the same thing, then delete, per nom. Reh man 11:37, 31 March 2011 (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:OriginalLogoVariationJerry.png[edit]

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image has no license, it is presumed to be non-free. JJ98 (Talk) 23:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused and non-free. Reh man 11:35, 31 March 2011 (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:Cartoon Network 2004-2010 logo.svg[edit]

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 (Non-admin closure) JJ98 (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this image does meet the non-free criteria. JJ98 (Talk) 23:43, 27 March 2011 (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.