The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tv varkey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• also found at http://tvvarkey.com/; uploader has not given ane explanation of how s/he is close enough to the source to be able to snap a portrait photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GHETTOMATION-POSTERmini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work: film poster. Stefan2 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Speedy convert to non-free licensing. Obvious case that doesn't require one-week discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Groove in the Saturn version.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work: game screenshot. Stefan2 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: (see immediately above) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonic Adventure 2 Battle cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work: game cover. Stefan2 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: (see immediately above) Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonic Adventure DX cover art.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work: game cover. Stefan2 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with ((dfu)) or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Msritkalam.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can't find this anywhere but it looks like dubious own work given the user's other uploads. Stefan2 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hilary Benn2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:43, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Davies of Oldham.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Fitzpatrick2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:46, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huw Irranca Davies2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:48, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dan Norris2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:52, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shahid Malik.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:53, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill McKenzie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:56, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbara Follett2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:57, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ian Austin2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:59, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Denham2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:00, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Healey2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:02, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosie Winterton2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:03, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phil Hope2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:05, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patricia Hewitt3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:06, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike O'Brien2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:07, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Warner2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:09, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Darzi2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:10, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan Lewis2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:12, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gillian Merron2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:13, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caroline Flint2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:14, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ben Bradshaw2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:15, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ann Keen2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:17, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Burnham2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan Johnson2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence this image has actually been released on the Open Government Licence. The source page makes no mention of the OGL, and similar source pages such as this and this release images saying they are not for commercial use. While it can't be assumed that these images can't be used commercially, it equally can't be assumed they have been released on the Open Government Licence since the source page makes no mention of that. Therefore the copyright status is completely unclear, and the image should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:20, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philip Hammond3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Hammond" will return the image in question, but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:36, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lord Astor2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Astor" will return the image in question (on page 2 of my results), but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:38, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Robathan2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Robathan" will return the image in question, but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:40, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peter Luff2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Luff" will return the image in question, but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:42, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nick Harvey2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Harvey" will return the image in question, but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:44, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G5 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerald Howarth2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not licenced under the Open Government Licence as claimed, but actually Crown Copyright which doesn't allow modifications and as such is an incompatible licence with Wikipedia unless the image is fair use. This notice makes it clear that images in the "downloadable section" are Open Government Licence but the main copyright notice makes it clear the rest are Crown Copyright. Searching all the archives for "Haworth" will return the image in question, but a similar search on the downloadable section doesn't return the image. As the image isn't in the downloadable section it isn't OGL but Crown Copyright, and should be deleted. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:46, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:KG logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Official fraternity logo, without evidence of PD status or free license grated from fraternity. Also, unused, so likely out of scope. GrapedApe (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalingas of Barrio Vira.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Post-1945 photograph from the Philippines. Unless published before 1946, it is copyrighted in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BulgarianMilitaryMerit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to the license on here, medals and symbols are not a part of the copyright exception (unlike in, for example, Russia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:32, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BulgarianForLabourDistinction.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to the license on here, medals and symbols are not a part of the copyright exception (unlike in, for example, Russia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:33, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:1908BulgarianCross.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to the license on here, medals and symbols are not a part of the copyright exception (unlike in, for example, Russia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:33, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Br-381.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-BrazilGov the file has to be created before 1983 before it can be considered public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:35, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:AirviewITA.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-BrazilGov the file has to be created before 1983 before it can be considered public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:36, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traianb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Violates the terms of ((PD-RomaniaGov)) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:15, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cnme42.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Violates the terms of ((PD-RomaniaGov)) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:16, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arraras maria-celeste.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I checked the LOC page and the image was not there. However, if you look at the efix data, the photo was taken in 2005 (and she did not appear at the 2009 book festival, but 2007 according to http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/author/maria_celeste_arraras) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:15, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dumbo1955DisneylandAttraction.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I can see no evidence on the source page that this has been released under a free license. J Milburn (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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, issue has been resolved. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geri Reischl near Boston Harbor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• While the image is authorised for use on Wikipedia and has been released under a Creative Commons license, it has been released under a non-commercial license not allowing derivatives. As such, it does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "free". J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Geri Reischl has changed the license for use to meet Wikipedia's definition of "free". Check the page at her official site GeriReischl.com. --xgdfalcon (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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, now licensed under fair use. — ξ^xplicit 01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thrill scape 3-D logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Corporate logo. I doubt it is freely licensed. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.