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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Getty images logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cnbrb ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Kungfu2187 (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's clear that you want this file gone, since you nominated it for speedy deletion twice and now this. What's not so clear is why. What is the rationale for deletion? - Eureka Lott 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it appears to have been replaced by File:Getty Images Logo.svg ... which the nominator should have mentioned. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 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.

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 Danger (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sussecoatofarms.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Matt69er ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Outdated "logo", superfluous to File:University of sussex small logo.png, no longer used, doesn't identify the uni any more so cannot qualify under NFCC 8 ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 07:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A single use of a seal or CoA is appropriate on a university page as it is the official emblem of the school. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ...although that's just a meaningless proof by assertion. You need to explain how the omission of the crest would harm readers' understanding or recognition of the topic: the logo has changed, that crest doesn't seem to appear anywhere on the website, and unless it is being displayed as part of a commentary on its design or whatever, it cannot identify the university. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  (EC) It is both common and acceptable to include such an image on the primary university article:

  Kansas State University

  Texas A&M University

  University of Cambridge

  Moscow State University

  etc.

  However, it appears they have discontinued use of the logo. Given that it was part of the University for for 43 of its past 49 years, a simple note in the text of the article and the display of this logo would be appropriate to explain why the old logo no longer is used (and I did just that). — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  ...although now the coat of arms has no valid fair use rationale whatsoever. "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing University of Sussex, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization..." is not applicable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Storting─╢ 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Heaven forbid you wait more than two minutes for me to make the necessary changes... — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's going to take way more than two minutes for you to make that image so vital that readers would have trouble understanding the article without it. And that's what's required: NFCC8. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 14:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "so vital that readers would have trouble understanding the article without it" is not the standard for WP:NFCC#8. Taunting isn't necessary either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm - that's precisely what NFCC8 is about. Taunting may not be necessary but a basic understanding of policy is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's your personal opinion. It "precisely" says something else. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  OK; I'll bite. What does NFCC8 say, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Before you answer, you'll probably want to read what it says (potentially for the first time, given your input above) so I've helpfully copied it here for you. Non-free content is used only if its omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Which, paraphrased, comes out as "...if readers would have trouble understanding the article without it," like I said. So basically you're either desperately clueless about the policy or intentionally mis-representing it. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But solely in order to get around your Wikilawyering, allow me to rephrase my comment from above. It should now be read as, "It's going to take way more than two minutes for you to make that image such that its omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. And that's what's required: NFCC8." ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You know what I've noticed when people say, "Don't wikilawyer!"? It usually means that they made a mistake and are unwilling to admit that they might be wrong and/or they want people to follow the rules only as THEY interpret them. Yes, it states "only if its omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article." This means that the article, without the NFC, would have a negative impact the the understanding of the article. It does not mean that readers can't comprehend the article without said NFC, only that "readers would have trouble understanding" it. I believe the image meets this intent. You need to accept that reasonable people can see the same rule and disagree. You do not need to resort to snide remarks, insults, and other uncivil behavior as is noted in your editor review (any time 17 editors respond negatively and none positively, I think you should reconsider your responses a little more. In short, you need to dial back the hostility quite a bit. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if we're going to get so off-topic, then I'd suggest you re-read the editor review, because then you may wish to revise your assessment of it ("17 editors respond negatively and none positively") accordingly. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine. You want to continue this? Here's all 17:

• — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your omission of the comment from 28bytes (talk · contribs) can only have been intentional, and your cluttering up a deletion discussing with irrelevant bollocks can only be construed as disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I felt that was more neutral than positive, but fine. If you want a 17:1 ratio instead of 17:0, you've got it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I have attempted [1] to collapse the above section as being completely off-topic and irrelevant to the deletion, but apparently it is not. Hmm. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coat of arms has been discontinued. Wikipedia is supposed to stay up to date yes? If not deleted under NFCC#8, then then it should be deleted based on maintenance/housekeeping reasons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  By definition, WP keeps track of history (things that have already happened). As a matter of fact, if you'll read the article, it is up to date and the logo is used in the University's history, not as the primary image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that what Fastily means (and what I mean) is that for all the text you produced above, you have yet to provide one credible explanation of how the image meets NFCC8 – by whoever's interpretation of it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 19:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry. Was I talking to you? Why don't you let him explain instead of speaking for him? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you weren't talking to me. Nor do you have the privilege to ban others from commenting on your arguments, particularly when they're so poorly advanced. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't ban anyone. Only the community as a whole can do that. I asked for his opinion, not yours. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You asked for his opinion. I gave you mine. I'm allowed to do that. Cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 20:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems that preserving a history is a good reason to keep not delete. Mtking (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Firstly, my understanding of CoA is that they remain for ever, they may not be using it as a logo, but is not still the CoA of the university right or have they disowned it totally ? Does anyone know if it is used on Degree awards ? I suspect it might be, it is not uncommon for a university to have a corporate logo and a seal or CoA. Secondly if it has ever been used on Degree awards (which as I say I don't know) then it is worth keeping as it might help someone who looks up the university from outside Sussex or England wanting to check if it is valid. Mtking (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with absolutely everything you've just said – but it's not relevant to Wikpedia, sadly. Indeed, knowing what the coat of arms looks like could help somebody verify whether or not a degree is authentic. But that isn't actually the point of Wikipedia.
  The policy situation has been very clearly set out by Cmadler (talk · contribs) below. There are two sides to it: (a) the image must be subject to critical commentary in the article, as per WP:NFCI, and this image is not; and (b) the image's deletion must be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Can you quote to me the part of the article which would be harder to understand if the image were gone? ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I doubt any logo on any university page should be kept we are to stick rigidly to that rule - WP:IAR would seem to apply, this "rule" would seem to be harming the usefulness of the article. Mtking (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is not harming the usefulness of the article. No encyclopedic content in the article would be any less useful if the image were removed. You're right that it would make life marginally more difficult for people attempting to verify degree certificates, but that's not the service we should be aiming at. Non-free content must be justified by in-article text and that is the rule. (Incidentally, you've not addressed the NFCC1 concerns raised below either.) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  NFCI does not require logos to be "subjects of critical commentary" as you stated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, you're right! It requires them to be "for identification" – so it's just a pity that this one is (a) replaceable, given Cmadler's comments about heraldry below, which you've still 'accidentally' failed to respond to, and (b) doesn't identify the organisation, given that it's not used any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►Boothroyd─╢ 07:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "For identification" is not limited to only current use. It can also identify how the organization identified itself in the past. 74.207.165.254 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The image, in its current use, is absolutely irrelevant to an understanding of the University of Sussex, the topic of the article. As far as I can tell, it's mentioned in a single sentence ("In an attempt to appeal to a modern audience, the university chose to simplify its logo from a coat of arms to the current "us" logo."), and there's no need for a reader to see the actual coat of arms to understand that statement. In its current use, the image is purely decoration. cmadler (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I suspect that the current "us" logo, File:University of sussex small logo.png, may fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. cmadler (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • After considering the matter, I believe this image also fails NFCC1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created...") The key is the last phrase I quoted, "could be created". My understanding, based on commons:Commons:WikiProject Heraldry is that, while a particular fixture of a coat of arms may be copyrighted (e.g. I draw it so I have a copyright), the blazon is not copyrighted, and therefore a free image can be constructed. This appears to be the entire justification for the existence of that Wikiproject at Commons. So, it would seem to be as simple as requesting that one of the participants create a free fixture of this coat of arms. cmadler (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Cmadler is right on both counts. First (and this is often confusing for those not familiar with heraldry) it is possible to construct a free version of these arms for use in the article. Given that it is not crucial for the reader's understanding to see this specific fixture of the arms, and it is not really given critical coverage in the article (i.e. critical analysis of the image) the image fails both NFCC #1 and #8 --Errant ^(chat!) 09:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean to keep. Because, as User:Mtking writes, the grant of a CoA is for ever. Yes, per Cmadler, another realisation of the coat of arms could be created, still keeping to the letter of the heraldic blazon. However, if this is the "fixture" that was used as a logo for over 40 years, then it seems to me that there is value in showing this image, over an alternative realisation that wasn't. Jheald (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's akin to arguing that we should use a musician's publicity photo rather than a similar free alternative, because the publicity photo is the one that people are accustomed to seeing. cmadler (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, to take your analogy further (but in the opposite direction), it's like trying to delete the logo that people are used to seeing and replace it with a free version that isn't the same. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is standard practice on Wikipedia not to use original coats of arms, but instead specially-made renderings. For example, see Personal Flag of Queen Elizabeth II. You could say, "Well we've deleted the flag that everyone was used to and made something completely different," but it wouldn't be true. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where is this "standard practice" documented ("to not use original coats of arms, but instead specially-made renderings.")? Buffs (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • On practically every page featuring a coat of arms, including the one I just linked to, as well as (to take some random examples) Coat of arms of Botswana, Princess Beatrice#Arms, Katharine, Duchess of Kent#Titles, styles, honours and arms, Coat of arms of Denmark. For the deletion discussion in which I disocvered the very principle I am now passing onto you, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Personal flag of Queen Elizabeth II.svg. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 08:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not because it is easily replaceable - it isn't. This is not a coat of arms. Well, obviously it is, but it has not been used in a manner consistent with being a coat of arms - having multiple acceptable renderings is a defining characteristic of a real coat of arms. Only one rendering of this image has been used for an extended period of time, and if a different one was substituted, people familiar with it would say, "hey, that image isn't right!" In other words, this is a former corporate logo, and if new renderings of existing logos are acceptable then we can use my free version to replace the non-free content in this article (I also offer my artistic skills to replace any other corporate logos in the interests of free content). My actual reason for believing deletion is appropriate is that the image is non-free, not particularly significant or memorable, and no longer proper for identification of the organization because it is no longer used by them. (I do believe some historical corporate logos are important enough to be worth keeping - for example, plenty has been written in reliable sources about the history of the Apple logo - but this isn't one of those cases). Thparkth (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, you'd be wrong regarding both IBM and Coca-Cola's logos. They are both {{PD-Text}}. However, your point about the University is noted. THANKS! Buffs (talk) 07:09, 26 June 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.

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:4WD VULCAN.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Anitahaase ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

obsolete, replaced by chassis dynamometer compact.jpg Anitahaase (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong place This is a commons image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:01, 21 June 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.

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 MilborneOne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordan Thomas 2011.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

User (me) leaving Wikipedia, and image is now an orphan, and unencyclopedic ProcEnforce (talk) 20:33, 21 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jordan Thomas 2010.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not used. Not useful. damiens.rf 21:23, 21 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-hyper.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-super.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-express.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:27, 21 June 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.

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⚡ 02:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITM-contact.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free image only used in a gallery not mentioned in the unsourced text of the article. damiens.rf 21:28, 21 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; solution offered. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simply Market.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logo used to decorate a gallery. damiens.rf 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oh come on. It's just labeled wrong (CLEARLY {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}}). It doesn't need to be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks creative enough to me, and not just "typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". It's actually a non-trivial combination of them all. It's not like they just wrote the brand name under some typeface and draw some figures. The individual charaters and the figures fuse (see show the y prolongs into a background for "market", or how the "i" has a different color for its dot). I confess I'm not an expert on text-logos, but this is my assessment. Of course, anyone is welcomed to take this confession as an opportunity for gratuitous personal semi-attacks. --damiens.rf 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • variations in color and/or letter placement are explicitly mentioned as not original enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:32, 23 June 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.

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep; solution offered. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simply masket 2008.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ProcEnforce ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Logo used to decorate a gallery. damiens.rf 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oh come on. It's just labeled wrong. IT'S ONLY TEXT!!! (CLEARLY {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademarked}}). It doesn't need to be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for SUCH A GOOD ARGUMENT. But see above. --damiens.rf 02:28, 22 June 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.