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. The explicit keep argument is only addressing only one of the potential replacement images, and the copyright issue on the other is addressed by the latest comment Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by User:Johnbod (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

File:Back cover of St Cuthbert Gospel.JPG and File:The St Cuthbert Gospel of St John. (formerly known as the Stonyhurst Gospel) is the oldest intact European book. - Upper cover (Add Ms 89000).jpg are free files that obsoletes it. The uploader claimed that "The alternative image on Commons was uploaded by a trainee at the BL as part of their work, but their website appears to assert copyright on it. This image is the safer choice", but as long as it's on Commons and there's no dispute about its freedom (on Commons), we shouldn't host a Fair Use image of it. Prosfilaes (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? A large proportion of Commons image have invalid rationales, and everybody knows it. That's before discussing this promotional image - I don't know that it's not free. As I said before "As the FU notes say, no photography of the book except by the BL is allowed, nor is it likely to be, for conservation reasons. This image has been released to the press, and was sent to me by the BL to use. The alternative image on Commons was uploaded by a trainee at the BL as part of their work, but their website appears to assert copyright on it. This image is the safer choice." Btw, "obselete" is not a verb. This is the 2nd image on an FA, and better than the other. I don't know why you mention File:Back cover of St Cuthbert Gospel.JPG, which is clearly of something else. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously! We're all part of Wikimedia, and we shouldn't sit here and bad-mouth another project instead of trying to improve it. This is a marginal fair use, at best, depicting an existing book that we have an unquestionably free version of, File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg. The fact that there is files of equal quality on Commons that are prima facie free means we shouldn't be hosting it here.

It is true that "obselete" is not a word in English; since I didn't use that word, I'm not sure why you brought it up. As wikt:obsolete says, "obsolete" can be used as a verb. It may be informal usage, but it is so used in published English and it was clearly understood by you and should be understood by most of the readers. It's much better formal English than "Btw".--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fuzzy black and white image from 1911 is completely inadequate for use. As I say, there is no evidence that this file is not free. I've bolded your use of "obselete" as a verb, since you find it hard to see. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bold around obsolete, which you somehow confused with "obselete". I don't believe that fair use lets us take the best quality photo over one that's merely free, but I'll leave that to the experts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we have here an image, not duplicated in colour, angle, or quality by any other image, of a book cover that the British Library will not allow people to photograph, so the image is not replaceable now by any free image, and is not likely to be. The EB 1911 image in fuzzy monochrome, shot face-on, does not give anything like the same impression of the object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What about File:The St Cuthbert Gospel of St John. (formerly known as the Stonyhurst Gospel) is the oldest intact European book. - Upper cover (Add Ms 89000).jpg?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both of the files on Commons supersede this. From the British Library copyright page: "Public Domain Mark and CC0 images from British Library collections are being made available on photo-sharing websites Flickr and Wikimedia Commons to increase access and encourage reuse of our open materials. These works are marked "no known copyright restrictions", indicating that the British Library is unaware of any current copyright restrictions on these works." (emphasis mine)[1] This means the photos uploaded to commons are PD no questions asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menaechmi (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 June 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: keep. ℯxplicit 00:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 AFL Women's logo.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kb.au (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image is non-free, tagged with Media data and Non-free use rationale, but it's resolution is too high for a non-free file (it's an SVG, and therefore has a theoretically unlimited resolution). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm pretty sure logos are meant to be in SVG format as I've seen multiple logos tagged with ((Should be SVG)). For the low resolution part in NFCC, just use ((SVG-Res)). If the current version of the logo's resolution can be reduced more, then upload a new version with a reduced resolution. Flickerd (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that you can't have a low resolution SVG, it's scalable, it is crystal clear at any resolution, that's the point of them (see SVG). ColonialGrid (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SVG logos are well accepted on Wikipedia; they just mustn't be rendered at a higher resolution than necessary (see WP:LOGO for guidelines on non free logo usage.) In the article, it is rendered at 200px wide; sufficiently high enough resolution to accurately represent the brand, but not excessive enough to fall outside of fair-use. At most, it might be appropriate to tag the image with Template:SVG-Logo or Template:SVG-Res. Kb.au (talk) 17:46, 26 June 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 as F5 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:X-Day logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Namcokid47 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

This file was previously used on X-Day (video game), which was deleted. Copyright information is disputed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider deleting it. Unless the X-Day article is somehow remade, then this doesn't have much use elsewhere Namcokid47 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 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 July 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gateshead FC New Stadium Graphic.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.