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 ⚡ 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:The truth about capitalism.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hoving ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

According to [1], this was written some time just before March 1976, so if it was published without a copyright notice, it is public domain. I don't know that we have any evidence of that, though. B ( talk) 00:28, 7 September 2018 (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. It was closed as "deleted" by Fastily. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:On education.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hoving ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

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

File:Who owns Enterprise.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs)

No evidence these are PD. Some similar articles (not this one) were published by Hoving in months prior to March 1976 [2], but these were presumably later since it's not mentioned in this article. We also have no idea whether they had a copyright notice. B ( talk) 00:33, 7 September 2018 (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 ⚡ 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Moses Baca mug shot.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by The Hammer of Thor ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

1935 mugshot, apparently created by the State of Colorado which can hold copyright. It's unclear when this was first published. If it was c. 1935, it's almost certainly public domain. If it was recent, this needs an appropriate fair use rationale to be kept. — Guan aco 08:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and tag as {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. 1935? Even in the extremely unlikely event that it was first published with a copyright notice (basically no chance of that), there is no way in heck that the copyright was renewed (no state is going to waste time renewing copyrights of mugshots). -- B ( talk) 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Striking per JJMC89 below -- B ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

One likely possibility is that the mugshot was kept as a state record and not actually published until recently. If so, it's copyrighted. — Guan aco 02:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless there conclusive is evidence of PD status. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
•  Note: According to ticket:2018082110006577, restoration work has been done on this photograph. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ JJMC89: In general terms, by whom? (The state of Colorado? The uploader? Some unrelated third party?) -- B ( talk) 12:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ B: An unrelated third party obtained the original from the state of Colorado and had someone else restore it for them. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ JJMC89: Did the unrelated third party purport to offer any sort of free license for the image, are they asking for us to remove the image and claiming copyright, or are they just letting us know for purposes of proper attribution? -- B ( talk) 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
        • @ B: They are claiming copyright and requesting removal. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
          • In that case, I think it's a pretty clear delete -- B ( talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (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: Remove from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. Historical precedent on WP:NFCC#8 questions is that older logos are not allowed unless there is some dedicated discussion of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eastmain ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free logo that is being used as primary identification in National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. there are two other uses claimed but one is a redirect and the other doe snot actually use the images. The primary identification is however being done performed with File:NIELIT Logo.jpg. This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a as we do not need two logos for identification. this is especially true when it is not at all clear that this is a organisational logo. The source URL provided https://www.nielit.gov.in/ doe not work. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS does resolve but http://www.nielit.gov.in/ does not seem to have this logo anywhere. As such WP:NFCC#10a is not met either. Whpq ( talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The organization has rebranded as NIELIT. The old logo identifies the previous brand and is still used at http://www.doeacc.info/doeacc_headquater.php but I cannot confirm that this is an official site. Another editor originally uploaded the logo to Commons where it was likely to be deleted, so I added it at English Wikipedia. When you have two identifies, one current and one historical, you need two logos. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Organisations change their name and / or branding, but we do not keep their old logos unless the logos themselves are the subject of significant sourced commentary. --

• Remove from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. If the article doesn't discuss the old branding, we don't need to show what it looked like. Neither is it needed for identifying the organization at present.

Keep in Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Classes for the time being but it appears that the two articles ought to be merged. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:46, 24 August 2018 (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 ⚡ 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Al83tito ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Very large non-free image (1.2Mpx). The question is keep? / reduce? / delete? I've set for no reduce for the purpose of this discussion. Allowing the facility to "zoom in", somewhat goes against NF policy. The need for text is also questionable as WP:NFC says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ron, thank you for starting this discussion of this file I uploaded yesterday. I was aware that the image was larger than usual, and in good faith I uploaded the image including within the rationale a request for an exception. So I look forward to this assessment by the Wiki community. Part of the upload justification in the file page reads as follows:

This image will be used as the primary means of visual identification of 63 persons in the article that talks about them. It would have been categorized as an historic portrait, was it not for the fact that some of the individuals are still alive. This upload is the most efficient way of providing visual identification of all 63 individuals, within just one file.

NOTE ON IMAGE SIZE: Wikipedia's Non-free content policy indicates that WP:Image resolution should be kept as low as possible. Usually it should be kept under 100,000 pixels. When larger "Images which need for some reason to be larger than this need a detailed justification given; otherwise they should be resized or deleted". This image merits an exception and here is the special justification for being larger. First, even though technically the pixel resolution is of 1293 × 925, the spatial resolution is lower than that (this was achieved with a two-step process of scanning the source book, and then taking a screen shot). Second, and more importantly, part of the purpose of displaying this image is so that 63 individuals, with their portrait pictures as well as their names, can be visible and legible respectively. A zoom-in to any one portrait in the file will demonstrate how the actual resolution per portrait is low; quite pixelated, as well as the captions under each. However, this resolution still allows it to be reasonably legible. Reducing further the resolution would render the text in the image illegible, and the image would lose an important part of its value.

Image at left has a higher pixel count than the one to the right, but is still of worse spatial resolution.

As for the pixel count, I want to draw attention to the distinction between pixel resolution and spatial resolution, as indicated in rationale above. See illustrative example to the right.

However, this is just a basic technical consideration. The core of the matter is whether this upload, which efficiently, within one single file, includes portraits of 63 individuals that are the direct topic of the article, can be kept at the size it was uploaded.

One more thing: Ron refers to WP:IMAGERES policy which says that loss of text detail is usually acceptable. I would like to posit that the only practical way to identify the image of the person, with the name, is to maintain enough resolution so that the text is legible (without needing to be crisp-- a balance I was aiming to strike in the current upload size). The usual alternative, which is to transcribe the names (and other data) and location of 63 individuals within the image, into the description of the image, seems unpractical for the readers to make sense of it in this case.

I look forward to the community assessment. Thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I want to add that I am not especially knowledgeable on the meaning on spatial resolution. There is a chance that my interpretation of it is incorrect. I am open to being disabused. In any case, the core of the rationale for inclusion of non-free image, and then its unusually large size, hinge on another considerations as outlined above. Thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the stamp is being used as a de facto gallery of fair-use images and we don't do that. -- B ( talk) 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I disagree with the applicability of that gallery policy. This is as much a "de facto gallery", as a single photograph of a group of people. The image presented here is a scan of one original work; I have not scanned multiple works and put them together into one single file (that is what that gallery policy is about). Many original works derive elements from multiple, prior works, but when enough additional work has happened on them, they are treated as a new work that stands on itself. I am on the road and I can further engage in this deliberation on the weekend weekend. Thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito   22:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

further and to my point, the gallery guidelines state "A montage created by the copyright holder of the images used to create the montage is considered a single non-free item and not separate items." So again, an argument to delete based on that guideline is actually without base. thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito   04:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: This is not quite gallery usage, as Al83tito demonstrates. What it is is explained in WP:NFC#UUI§1 and the counterindication in italics. It's not a clear-cut case – and exceptional work has been made with the rationale and arguments here – however I believe that the use does not meet NFC for the reasons:

It is fundamentally a group picture – of sorts – of people some of whom are alive and some of whom are deceased. We don't need this particular picture to identify these people. As a matter of fact, we don't need any group picture to identify them. An individual portrait for each would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. But for individual portraits, pictures of those who are alive are replaceable. Although the rationale states "No reasonable expectation to acquire a free image given that the individuals reside in North Korea", this or any other argument like it has never fared at FFD, including in discussions specific to North Korea.

I was asked to comment here. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you,@ Finnusertop:, for your contribution to the discussion here. I respect your views and I am digesting them. As I understand it, your point is basically that the image is inadmissible at this point because some of the people in the image are still alive. In your view, if at some future point after all of the individuals are deceased, and no other free image of them has emerged in the intervening period, would, in your interpretation of the policies, this image be admissible then? Thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Al83tito: well it would solve that particular problem with the image, but like I said, we're not dealing with a clear-cut case. It could really go either way. The underlying size issue would remain. And contextual significance is unclear here when the article talks about these people (but not their looks), but the stamp (and its appearance in particular) is not discussed. That should be looked at in context of replaceability. As I said above, we don't need this particular image of the people (esp. when the stamp is not discussed). The question would be can we find other images (when taking new photos is no longer an option) or are we stuck with this one. And, to reiterate, even then, contextual significance is far from settled. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete We only need pictures of these people in their individual articles, not in the article about them as a group. If some of them don't have their own articles, then we don't need pictures of them. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stefan2: I am sorry, I don't understand this point. Articles that talk about groups of people are ineligible to have images of the group? How about the   Yalta Conference, where Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt are together in a photograph (just to mention one example)? I have never come across of such a rule or guideline for image inclusion, being limited to individuals and excluding groups of people. Could you please provide a link to those rules, that support your assertion? Look, at the end I accept the possibility that the image may be deleted, but not al arguments are equally valid: some are well argued, and others deletion arguments are actually stating reasons that contradict policies. Again, I accept the possibility of the image being deleted, but let's ground that decision on good and well-grounded reasoning. Thank you.( talk) user:Al83tito 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Al83tito: The Yalta Conference photo is public domain and not applicable to a discussion about whether this image meets our non-free content policies. -- B ( talk) 22:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ B: The assertion above originally read to me as a general assertion of all images, free and non-free. To that point I mentioned the Yalta Conference. However, if we re-interpret the point only being applicable to non-free content, my point still stands: I am unaware of any non-free content rule that specifically bans pictures of groups of people, because they are a group of people. Examples of non-free images illustrating a group of individuals include Chicago Colleens, Springfield Sallies, 1950 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season, 1951 All-American Girls Professional Baseball League season. There are differences between the image here under discussion and these other examples I am pointing to, and other potentially solid arguments can be made about the inclusion or exclusion of this image. However, I don't think that an argument based on the fact that it is an image representing a group, is a valid reason to argue deletion. As I was asking before, please point to the rules that support your point. Thank you. ( talk) user:Al83tito 23:35, 14 September 2018 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Scope creep ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

tagged OTRS received for over 7 months. After reviewing the associated ticket, I think it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is a public domain image, that was confirmed by the Mrs Rene S Stein NSA Librarian (Here she is: [3], when it was uploaded. The last I heard, the Wikipedia Foundation were in conversation with the NSA for the use of their images, for the whole Wikipedia platform. That was more than a year ago. Not heard anything back since. I tried to contact Rene around at that time, to get a OTRS Ticket fulfilled and was informed that the Foundation was talking to then. The document the image is taken from US Military document that was released by the NSA as no longer secret and as such it is public domain. scope_creep ( talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is the document it comes from: [4]. It clearly states it is distributed free. scope_creep ( talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Scope creep: The issue isn't whether the booklet is distributed without cost ("free" in the sense of "free pizza") — the issue is whether the image is free of copyright restrictions ( free content). Unfortunately, the booklet doesn't credit the source of the image, so just from looking at the booklet, we can't tell whether the image was a US-government-authored image (public domain), a Nazi-authored image seized by the US government and determined to be public domain under US law (see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN for an example of these), an image authored by the British government (which would be public domain if it were taken prior to 1957), or an image authored by some other person, which is likely still under copyright. @ Fastily: can you please tell us the nature of the OTRS ticket? Was it from a librarian purporting to be the copyright holder and granting a copyright release? (That's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.) Or was it from someone purporting to give us the provenance of the image in one of the above four categories? -- B ( talk) 15:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you want me to post the email here? The email I received, from Patrick Williams, who tried to contact Ms Rene Stein, and successfully contacted me. This is that email. That was on 18th February 2017, and I've not heard anything since.

Dear Rene Stein,

Were these photos taken by a US federal employee in the course of their duties? If so then per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code it is automatically in the public domain. If not, I need some information regarding who took the photos (if known) and when exactly they were taken. Regardless, it is likely that any possible copyright on these images has expired but I'd like to be certain. Thank you and if you have any questions please let me know.

Yours sincerely, Patrick Williams Permissions ticket number: Ticket#2018011110009211

And then I sent this:

RE: [Ticket#2018011110009211] FW: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob Watson Permissions (permissions@wikimedia.org) Hi Patrick. I can't get hold of Rene. It's possible he is on holiday or snowed in. The image is from a world war 2 device. The whole document is about world war 2 devices. Thanks. Bob

Rene is a women if you happen to contact her. Here is the Rene Stein email.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - So sorry to take so long in getting this to you. I had to wait for the history people to transfer the pictures to me. There are two of the SG-39 and two of the SG-41. We don't have any of the other items so I can't help you there. However you may want to try the Cryptomuseum.com people. Please credit NSA for the photos. Thanks for your patience. Rene

From: XXXX [5] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 5:42 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms Rene Stein, I got a nice image of the SG 41 off of Klaus Schmeh, which he uploaded to Wikipedia commons, but so far no images of the SG39, Schlüsselkasten, Schlüsselscheibe or Schlüssselrad. I've put the image of SG41 into the Fritz Menzer article at https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Fritz_Menzer#Menzer.27s_Inventions If I can't get an image of those last three images, I would use the ones from the document as they are all we've got, although they are not ideal. Is there any particular copyright licence you would like to attach to them. Yours Sincerely. Bob

From: Stein, Rene S. [6] Sent: 06 February 2017 16:08 To: 'XXXXX' <scope_creep@hotmail.com> Cc: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - If you want to use the photos in the publication, that's fine. However I am assuming that you would like better ones. I have a photo of an SG-41 that we have at the museum and I am trying to get one of the SG-39 from Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Tue 14/02/2017 16:36 To:'Bob Watson' <scope_creep@hotmail.com>; 4 attachments (2 MB) 200710231440.jpg; 200710231440-2.jpg; SG-39-1.jpg; SG-39-2.jpg; Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 1 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 the History people. We don't have one of the Lückenfüllerwalze. I noticed that the Crypto-Museum website has one. Maybe they will allow you to use theirs. Please let me know if the photos from the publication suit your needs or you wanted something else. Thanks, Rene

From: XXXXXX [7] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:21 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms. Rene Stein I am contacting you regarding possibly licensing some images in a NSA document that I received from a contact. I spoked to Klaus Schmeh klaus@schmeh.org < mailto:klaus@schmeh.org> regarding a web site he created, which had several images of German World War II cryptographic machines, and he informed me that they were licenced from a document received from yourself and he gave me your contact details. The document is located at: https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/assets/files /german_cipher.pdf. As regards myself, I'm an editor in Wikipedia, and I'm currently writing an article on Fritz Menzer, who was an inventor during WW2. Here is the location: /info/en/?search=Fritz_Menzer I'm trying to get licensable images for the Lückenfüllerwalze, Schlüsselgerät 39, Schlüsselgerät 41 devices and so on. Essentially all the devices in that list, would be better if they had images of some sort. It's very hard to imagine what they looked like from their description, which is all I have at the moment. Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 2 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 My editor name is: scope_creep Thanks for your time. Yours Sincerely XXXXX Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 3 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38

scope_creep ( talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Scope creep: my gut says its likely public domain (probably a government photographer) but unfortunately nothing in this email chain tells us that. -- B ( talk) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I think it is public domain. You could contact the WMF guy Patrick Williams and determine the what happened to the conversation that supposedly took place. scope_creep ( talk) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Fastily (who nominated the image for deletion) is an OTRS agent and he has access to the conversation. He reviewed Patrick's conversation and said he couldn't find sufficient evidence that the image is PD. -- B ( talk) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

As far as I known, that is because the conversation was half completed. Please contact Patrick Williams and find out what was said. It seemed to stop halfway through. For what reason I don't know. Contacting the current NSA librarian might be a good ideas as well. I don't mind waiting for a week or two while you get it sorted. I will contact the current NSA librarian, if I can find his name. Thanks. scope_creep ( talk) 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Fastily: in case there is some followup on the OTRS ticket that can be done. @ Scope creep: I don't have access to OTRS (I used to, but due to time constraints was not able to stay active) and so I can't see what is in the system regarding Patrick's conversation. -- B ( talk) 20:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

B, I found out that Rene Stein is still the librarian of the NSA. So Im going to email her in the morning. scope_creep ( talk) 20:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply

@ B: There have been no new developments in ticket:2018011110009211 since January 13, 2018. - FASTILY 04:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I have forwarded an email to the NSA librarian, Rene Stein, and hopefully I will get a wee affidavit back saying it is in public domain. scope_creep ( talk) 10:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I not managed to contact Ms Stein. I guess I will upload it as FU. scope_creep ( talk) 20:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Ive not managed to contact Ms Stein. I guess I will upload it as FU. scope_creep ( talk) 21:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I will reupload it with a Fair Use rationale, right now. scope_creep ( talk) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

That is it done. I think we should close it. scope_creep ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

It is still tagged as PD. The file doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in Fritz Menzer and probably not WP:NFCC#1 either. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Why did the image upload dialog not replace that old junk with a new summary? I think the image needs to be deleted, then I will upload as Fair Use again. This needs to be closed as well. scope_creep ( talk) 07:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

I choose the last entry in fair use, if that is any help. scope_creep ( talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Its not replaced anything in Fritz Menzer page, all the typed in has disappeared down the drain. scope_creep ( talk) 07:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

If you upload the image as non-free, it will just have to be deleted again for violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. You don't need a picture of a machine to understand an article about a person. Besides, there's already a freely licensed picture of a different kind of machine in the article, and there might still be copies of this machine around somewhere that someone could take photos of. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 11:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

There is no know image of this machine in the world, anywhere. That is the reason I put it in the up in the first place. It is totally unique. So WP:NFCC#1 is safe. The second machine SG-39 was by far the most important machine that the Nazi's built. Enigma was problematic and patchworked, where this was planned. Thousands of man hours probably. The reason I put it in Fritz Menzer article, was because he made it, and the source docs lumped them all together, the NSA, CIA and so on. Also there a ton of content, which can be used up for a new article. That would fix WP:NFCC#8 I don't mind it as a separate article. I will move the content in the couple. Thanks for taking the time to go through it. scope_creep ( talk) 00:28, 8 September 2018 (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 ⚡ 06:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Rainier Fog alternative cover.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zoolver ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Virtually identical to standard release--not enough of a difference to justify inclusion of more non-free media. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:12, 7 September 2018 (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 B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:FastPass wb.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elf ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The art at the top of the FastPass is copyrighted. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The image art is obviously copyrighted, the encyclopaedic value of this pic is also debatable. The Non Free usage of this pic only supports its use in an article on the ticket, which doesn't seem to be notable on its own.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 11:16, 14 September 2018 (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 B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:AdmissionTicket wb.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elf ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyrighted art. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, essentially orphaned (not used in the main space) with questionable licensing. Salavat ( talk) 23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The image art is obviously copyrighted, the encyclopaedic value of this pic is also debatable. The Non Free usage of this pic only supports its use in an article on the ticket, which doesn't seem to be notable on its own.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 10:16, 14 September 2018 (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 B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:SJMerc wb elf.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Elf ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Copyrighted newspaper pages. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 18:15, 7 September 2018 (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: deleted (blue link is Commons bleed) -- B ( talk) 22:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Seattle Police Mounted Unit, May 2013.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Orange Suede Sofa ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

contesting keep local: unused locally, already moved to commons FASTILY 19:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Orange Suede Sofa has contributed many encyclopedic images which all seem to be in use besides this one from a spot check. For whatever reason, they requested that the files be kept local; editors are given significant leeway to do this. Might as well keep them all local as opposed to breaking up the set of Seattle-related files in case they ever return and wish to easily locate it. Furthermore, deleting this file against their wishes may discourage them from contributing more wonderful, encyclopedic images in the future. —  Godsy ^{( TALK} _CONT) 19:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WP:NOTWEBHOST: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete, orphaned and redundant to Commons based file. Salavat ( talk) 23:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Unused pic that has a commons image already. This is no brainer. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 10:43, 14 September 2018 (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 ⚡ 22:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:Ra-international-log.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Afriwik ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader claimed own work, file is logo of publicly traded company. Should be re-uploaded with correct permissions Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 7 September 2018 (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 ⚡ 23:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC) reply

File:PERMATApintar Logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Slainthayer ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Uploader claims this is their own work, but the image is a logo for a Malaysian school for gifted children. Remove and re-upload with correct fair-use permissions.Never mind, just saw note above about Commons Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 7 September 2018 (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.