File:ABC2 (logo).svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Image will be used in an image gallery that displays historical logos for the item's subject and includes written history in conjunction with the images (e.g. Network Ten#Logo and identity history. Spoke with admin Diannaa (originally deleted the file) who directed me here. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 03:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Some of the images in Network Ten#Logo and identity history are public domain due to lack of originality. All of the others are overwhelmingly likely to be deleted shortly, and so is the one currently at ABC2#Logo and branding history. So that's not, in itself, a particularly convincing argument.
  There's a high bar for inclusion of non-free former logos, since they generally fail Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3a—so much so that the phrases "image gallery" and "historical logos" are both commonly used by themselves as reasons to delete such images, not to keep them. Usually there has to be sourced commentary that addresses the image directly and in detail, and while we obviously can't evaluate text that you haven't yet added, the kind of discussion currently at ABC2#Logo and branding history is insufficient. — Cryptic 04:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse provided that the logo is copyrighted. Historical logos may typically only appear in articles if there is sourced, critical discussion about the logo, so Network Ten#Logo and identity history should not contain any non-free logos. See WP:NFCC#8. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, copyrighted logos cannot appear in galleries. Stifle ( talk) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Question Are we talking about a logo that meets the treshold of originality in the United States? {{ PD-USonly}} is the marker one uses for logos which meet the TOO in their origin country but not in the United States. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I believe so, though an argument could be made that it isn't. It's very similar to File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg, in a different color and with the elements arranged differently. — Cryptic 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I believe you'll be looking at one of these, all of which appear to me to meet the rather low threshold of originality in the US. Wikipedia's practice of deleting copyrighted logos on grounds of failing to meet the NFCC is a clear example of our tendency to follow a rule off a cliff. It's not justifiable on any encyclopaedic grounds: corporations will always be delighted for us to host their logos. They're only concerned about trademark violations or passing off. The only benefit of deleting this material is to pacify the extremist libre-content faction of Wikipedians. In this case, since ABC Australia is a public service broadcaster from the Commonwealth, I expect we'll find the ABC's logos are actually subject to a special kind of copyright called Crown Copyright, which makes it even more weird and silly to delete the material, but from past experience I'm confident that the libre-content bunch will insist on a narrow interpretation of the rules here and they will get their way.— S Marshall T/ C 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
      • The actual image in question is the orange one labelled "2008–2011" on that page, if it helps. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC). reply
        • Thank you. I don't think any of our DRV closers use the one-word summaries in bold to assess a debate, but just in case this one is closed by someone who does, mine should not be read as endorse.— S Marshall T/ C 15:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Just chiming in that I agree with S Marshall on everything stated above. Hobit ( talk) 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, unfortunately. That logo seems to be original enough to be copyrightable, and FFD has rarely endorsed keeping former copyrightable logos unless there is specific discussion of the logo in question. Now, while it isn't true that non-free images can't be used in galleries (as WP:NFG says, occasionally a very well justified exception can be made), I'm afraid that here such an exception would not be granted. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply