The result of the discussion was: deleted for several reasons. Nobody in this discussion has made any effort to explain how this image complies with WP:NFCC#8. The image itself gives the explanation that it is used to show what a real accreditation looks like to distinguish it from fakes. As interesting as that may be, it's not necessary to the reader's understanding of the topic. And if, as the description page claims, the thing that distinguishes the authentic accreditation is only that "the auditor's reputation being put on the line, as well as the legal liability shouldered by such an audit", then you can say that in text - you don't need a scan of the accreditation statement (NFCC#3b). Graywl says below that he is currently asking for an opinion as to whether they would find it acceptable for us to keep the redacted version of the image, but this is completely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. Unless they are willing to provide it under an acceptable free content license, it is not appropriate for use here. (As an aside, I'm hesitant to endorse NFCC#4 as a reason to delete this image. NFCC#4 was originally added to the policy as an embodiment of our no original research rule - see diff - and if the image were to have met all other standards, I'm not sure that this would be a reason to delete it.) The bottom line is, there is nothing about this image that could possibly be argued "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" and even if there were, it could be accomplished with words alone. -- B ( talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The image violates WP:NFCC#3b, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8, see talk and PUF. Stefan2 ( talk) 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
As author of the document, I can confirm that the document is for official use and not for publication in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George27001 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Please forgive my lack of knowledge of using Wikipedia and thanks for your welcome. The issue is primarily a privacy one. The document was provided in confidence to the company and I have not given any permission for it to be shared, publicly or otherwise. I would appreciate your support. Best regards. George27001 ( talk) 21:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Perhaps just to add that accreditation statements, in this context, are not, in my view, "inherently intended for public consumption" but are a statement to the owner of system. George27001 ( talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Stefan2, thanks for the clarification, yes I was using the term "public domain" in the sense, "publicly available". Can I say that I really admire the efforts of all the volunteers who keep Wikipedia up to date and make it such a useful asset to everybody. And the complexity of all the policies to make sure it all works and stays legal is staggering. So, apologies to Elvey for confusing things further! I guess my issue is a much simpler one and it's simply one of privacy. WP:BLPPRIVACY talks about the need to protect people's privacy and I can't believe it's in the spirit of this policy to publish an image of my "wet ink" signature. I would really like to have this image removed from a publicly available area as soon as practicable. Many thanks. George27001 ( talk) 09:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Many thanks, much appreciated. I guess, though, if I understand how this works, that a final decision is still to be made. Every day's a school day. George27001 ( talk) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Fails the replaceability test; fine print can be illustrated using any of a number of free examples, and nothing in this discussion has given any reason why this non-free image is needed. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Violation of WP:NFCC#8. It would be just as easy to understand the article without this image.
Violation of WP:NFCC#3b. The image contains an entire textual work. To satisfy WP:NFCC#3b, a significant portion of the words would have to be deleted. Stefan2 ( talk) 01:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: The consensus seems to be to delete the file as failing WP:NFCC#8. One article where the image is used is about fair trade in general, another one is about fair-trade coffee. To use the file in these articles, one needs to show that the articles would be less understandable if the image is not there. It was not shown, and there are serious doubts it can be shown, hence unfortunately I have to delete the file.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10b. There is no discussion about this coffee brand in the article and it would be just as easy to understand the article without the image. Stefan2 ( talk) 01:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Cartoon does not increase the reader's understanding of the subject of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. The desired concept could easily be replaced by words and does not need the cartoon to be adequately described. Fails WP:NFCC8 It is also used in the article to push a particular POV against Greek attitudes to immigration which is also reflected in the fair use arguments made by the uploader on the page of the file. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 03:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused text logo, with no indication of notability of entity. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan image, game shown is of unclear notability. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused image, which does not asert notabiliy for it's subject. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Unused image, academic basis is not fully explained. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by INeverCry ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
No need for this non-free logo, as it appears prominently in the non-free screenshot directly below the logo in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan image of poor quality. No encyclopedic value, has some watermarking in top left and was only used on a userpage temporarily in 2010 -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan image of non-notable film director Michael Raderstor. Image is of web quality/resolution, might not be owned by uploader -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan personal photo that was temporarily used on userpage in 2010 -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan personal photo that was used briefly on a userpage in 2010 -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan logo for a Monster.com program, no encyclopedic value -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan photo overexposed. No encyclopedic value, possibly personal photo, unknown who "Mr. Nanda" is. Looks like image is of uploader -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphan personal photo of no encyclopedic value -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Orphaned file, redundant to commons image File:The Beach Boys, May 29, 2012.jpg Ronhjones (Talk) 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Wrestler Nova Cain, not notable wrestler. Dubious work of uploader as it is found on multiple other websites and is web resolution -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 22:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply