File talk:South African Scout Association pre 2008.svg

Non-free usage in "Scouts South Africa"
File is being used in Scouts South Africa, but it is not being used in the infobox as the primary means of identification of the subject of the article as its non-free use rationale claims. The file itself is also not the subject of any sourced commentary within the article so the context the file needs to satisfy WP:NFCC is not evident. It is generally considered necessary for a non-free image used outside of the main infobox or not as the primary means of identification to be the subject of sourced discussion within the article to a degree that the reader needs to see the image to understand what is written. Otherwise, the usage is considered to be mainly decorative and not acceptable per the NFCC and removing the image is not seen as being detrimental to the reader's understanding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was the emblem of the organization for 90 years, before they went to the world-logo-corporate-branding after 2000. I don't know how to properly justify it, but I strongly believe that in this case it is worthwhile keeping. Note I am not contesting the deletion of the bulk of these emblems, this one is worth saving if we can find a way.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 90 years from 2000 would be circa 1910 which means this could qualify as Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. I think this might be worth asking about at WP:MCQ, but they're probably going to say that something a little more specific which can be used to verify it's age is needed. Anything (website, book, magazine, etc.) that dates the image or shows it was published prior to 1923 should be sufficient, but it cannot be a mirror of Wikipedia. I google searched the image and found this and this. Those are not exactly the same, but I think they are close enough so if those can shown to have been around before 1923, than this image could probably be considered at least as old. For what it's worth, I believe the fleur-de-lis is non-copyrightable (See File:Fleur de lys (or).svg or just search "Fleur de Lys" on Commons and you'll find lots of simple versions), but the springbok is what puts it above the threshold of originality. It may be possible for somebody to recreate a free version of the image using non-copyrightable elements, so it might be worthwhile to ask at c:COM:R or WP:GL to see if it's possible. That's what is often done for coats of arms per c:COM:COA. They're not exactly the same, but they're considered close enough to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)