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, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soho - Kuching, Malaysia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kennysia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

No evidence that this restaurant even exists anymore. Not used in any articles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: retain as non-free, only in use in one article (the Postal Service's). czar 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Hello. On this page Political appointments of Donald Trump some one is taking away United States Postal Service Logo and he thinks it's a copyright and if it is all the other logo's are a copyright also right? if this logo File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg is not a copyright can you please add it back on there and try to lock it in place so people don't try to delate it? Thanks so much Should it be added back yes or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please respon to my question? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC+9)

Someone please respon to my question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2017(UTC+9)

Hi 96.36.68.29. FFD is for discussing files; it's not really for providing instant answers. Discussions remain open at least a week to try and give any interested members of the Wikipedia community an opportunity to participate. After that time, any comments made will be reviewed by an administrator (or another similarly experienced editor) as explained in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Administrator instructions. The discussion will be either closed or relisted depending upon whether a consensus has been reached.

As for the file itself, it is currently licensed as non-free content which means its use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive as was pointed out to you at WP:MCQ#File:United States Postal Service Logo.svg 150px and the file's non-free use in Political appointments of Donald Trump does not satisfy this policy. The other logos being used in that article are licensed as public domain, so they are not subject to the same policy. What needs to be discussed here is whether the United States Postal Service should be seen as public organization or a private organization. That may take some time, so you need to be patient and let the process run its course.-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the modern PO is no longer an official branch of the US Govt, its works are copyrightable and this logo is far from simple, so it is copyrightable and non-free. Furthermore, as it not an SVG from the Post Office itself, it technically is a further violation of NFC policy (due to the infinite resolution aspect with SVG) so really should be deleted and replaced with a PNG or JPG of the logo, and which can only be used on the USPS page. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question was already asked and responded to on my talk page and I suggested the two posters Corkythehornetfan and 96.36.68.29 should have continued the discussion started on the WP:MCQ page so other knowledgeable editors could have had the opportunity to respond. I had not noticed that it is now being discussed in a third place here despite clear responses but below is a repost of my reply as few if any other editors may have read it:

While the text is clearly not copyright in the US, the complex eagle design certainly passes the threshold of originality which is why it is here on the enwiki as a non-free image and not on the commons, and as such it use MUST comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines. It can really only be used in an article about that organisation, USPS, which is no longer a government department, and it clearly fails WP:NFCC when added to Political appointments of Donald Trump. It's very clear cut, so it should not be readded to that article. ww2censor 19:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Complex eagle design"? This can be recreated using MS Paint in less than a minute. KMF (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time it takes to create a design like this eagle has absolutely no bearing on whether it passes the Threshold of originality or not. That is the issue, not how easy it is to make. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: convert to ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in the United States. ℯxplicit 00:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:UniSIM Updated Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

UniSIM has been renamed to Singapore University of Social Sciences and hence this logo is deprecated Officer781 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now While it has been renamed, I haven't seen any information about the logo. Till that time, I would suggest to keep it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2017 April 30. czar 03:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camilo Jacob Historical Marker at Polangui, Albay.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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

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, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mario94606 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The book cover is used in the bibiliography section of the author's article, Brian Lumley. It goes against both WP:NFCI#1 and WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the book cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The cover art might be acceptable in a stand-alone article about the book itself as expalined in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but using it with in the author's article requires something more than just the wanting to show the cover. A bibliography is essentially an embedded list within another article, and generally non-free use in lists is not allowed per WP:NFLISTS becaue such usage tends to more decorative than contextual. There should be some sourced discussion of the cover art itself somewhere within the article to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8; otherwise, this type of usage is not really allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TAINT-c19035.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mario94606 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The book cover is used in the bibliography section of the author's article, Brian Lumley. It goes against both WP:NFCI#1 and WP:NFCC#8 because there is no commentary about the book cover thereby doing nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film. Aspects (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For the same reasons as I gave in the above discussion of "File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg", this file might be acceptable in a stand-alone article about the book itself as expalined in WP:NFC#cite_note-3, but using it with in the author's article requires something more than just the wanting to show the cover. Without any sourced discussion of the cover art itself somewhere within the article to provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8, this type of non-free usage is not really allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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