Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 3.1 logo.svg
I do not think this logo is below the threshold of originality. The increasing size of rhombuses give the window a motion effect. That should be enough for it to qualify as an original work. SeanZCampbell (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- This file was listed on English Wikipedia as a Windows 3.0 logo, I have just replaced it there with the real Windows 3.0 logo. If the file can be listed there for years and linked from Windows 3.1. article, why it cannot be listed here under its corrected name? Also, would you please clarify the situation - on one side, we have a fake Windows 1.0 logo at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg which is being kept despite of all the complaints, and on the other side, this 100% valid logo should be removed??? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)- Keep – I have seen a lot of files that do not fall withing the threshold of originality (as well as a lot of those that are copyright-protected) and per my experience, this file is eligible for inclusion in Wikimedia Commons under its current license tags. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyright protected logo - has been deleted previously years ago on Commons. On the English wikipedia it is a fair use image 178.7.226.33 16:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep because:
- This file does not fall with the threshold of originality, so it is not protected by copyright laws in spite of being a Microsoft commercial object. I have seen a lot of files that do not fall withing the threshold of originality (as well as a lot that do) and per my experience, this file is eligible for inclusion in Wikimedia Commons under its current license tags.
- Not a fortnight passes since the last DR and the image is renominated for deletion, with no new reason and nothing new to add to the last discussion. A second nomination that provides no new context for deletion is nothing but bludgeoning the process – probably in good faith, but nevertheless bludgeoning.
- Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: In spite of the nominator's claim, I could not find any deletion entries in this file's log. In addition, Windows 3.1x article on Wikipedia seems to be using this very same file, again contrary to the nominators claim. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment Who says that this file does not meet the threshold of originality? I really can remember deletion requests of Windows logos on Commons that were deleted because they are not simple enough. --High Contrast (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the last time the 3.1 logo came up it was deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 1990.jpg (not that this proves very much in itself) –moogsi (blah) 08:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- It just reflects that it is not so easy to say that this logo is simple. --High Contrast (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. It's definitely not a blatant violation, assuming it is one. -FASTILY 08:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
