Commons:Deletion requests/File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not simple enough geometry for PD, ergo copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Wikimedia claims that File:Commons-logo.svg is copyrightable, and we should apply the same standard to works from other sources. I am aware that "other stuff exists" is typically a fantastically poor argument, but the Commons logo is not just some overlooked corner at the periphery of the wikisphere; it's copyrighted, non-free status has been a matter of great debate. Anyone claiming that File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png is not copyrightable would need to explain how it differs from File:Commons-logo.svg in terms of original authorship or, failing that, effect change in the tagging of the Commons logo. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Commons accepts simple logos. You are going of what you think that should not be allowed here. The image contais just a letter and 4 shapes with shadows. Yes! The same way US flag is copyrighted but has it's Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am sure that mattbuck is aware that Commons accepts simple logos. The problem is that this most likely does not quality as a simple logo. You still haven't addressed how File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png differs in copyrightability from File:Commons-logo.svg. Oh, and the flag of the United States is not copyrighted. It's in the public domain because it is a US Federal Government work, and because it's not an original work but rather a work based on older versions. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- And because there is only one way to express it -- the dimensions are precisely defined in words. That would be a "merger doctrine" case ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As for this ... hrm. At first blush I would have said copyrightable, but the main symbol is a stylized "P", so that is primarily not copyrightable. I don't think the rest qualifies either... "aesthetically pleasing" for sure, but just three dashes. I'll say Keep on this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- LX, I would say that the part of the logo that would be closest to be copyrighted would be this "P" but as Carl already said above, it's just a stylized "P" (even this font nears it). That, with 3 dashes, plus 'shadow', makes me say to Keep it. Yah msg 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, this logo passes the treshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
