Commons:Deletion requests/File:Indy Fuel new 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.

File:Indy Fuel new logo.png

This file was initially tagged by Yann as no permission (No permission since) Yann (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak

Delete: To me, this is a complex logo. Yann (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The typeface and the background image both push this over TOO. But this is not a simple 'no permission' issue and is outside the scope of any speedy deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If File:Best Western logo.svg is ok per COM:TOO United States, then this logo should be as well --Schlurcher (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my view, this logo isn't above COM:TOO United States, when looking at the examples given there:

The font is quite simple, including the little triangles in the letters I, F and U.
The puck is just composed of simple shapes, i.e. two ovals and a checkerboard pattern. The checkerboard pattern on a cylindrical surface is merely the result of its geometry (see another example). It is not art, but simple graphic work.

--Leyo 14:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But in my opinion the checkerboard pattern is complex. It does not consist of simple geometrical figures. The rest is simple. The logo without checkerboard pattern would be acceptable. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only about how simple geometric shapes are. Also complex geometric shapes can be depictions of “facts” (e.g. en:Fractal and others in en:Category:Geometric shapes). The question is whether there is an artistic dimension to it and, if so, how important it is.

If you put a checkerboard pattern around a puck and look at it from an angle, that's just what it looks like. --Leyo 19:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I already have written in the undeletion request: This is just simple geometry and therefore below the TOO. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning toward Keep. If the only basis for deleting is that the checkerboard is ostensibly too complex, then that has got to be wrong. I am sure I could make a logo with that identical checkerboard pattern, but that did not otherwise resemble this one, and no U.S. court would ever uphold a claim of copyright infringement for that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this logo is likely to be below COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure, because none of the examples at that link are quite like this one. This has a combination of the 3D figure implication of File:Commvault logo 2019.svg, though much more of a 3D implication, and much less complex shadings than File:Nikon Logo.svg. I think that ends up as PD, but what would the com:pcp result be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyright Registration VAU001153748 / Copyright Registration VAU001153751--Trade (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schlurcher, Leyo, Chaddy, Jmabel, and Ikan Kekek: --Trade (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Are these just copyright registration applications, or is their availability proof of registration? If the logo is in fact copyrighted, we obviously can't host it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
publicrecords.copyright.gov have been used to support the deletion of US logos several times in the past. If they arent evidence we are gonna need to undelete a lot of logos Trade (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't actually answer my question. If they are just copyright applications, they should not be used as evidence of copyright, because anyone can apply for something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
have not seem anything that would indicate this Trade (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peer Taivo ,the checkerboard pattern is complex (above TOO in USA) (google translator).

AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simplistic work. No Originality Xgeorg (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

im satisfied more with keep votes. Keep modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 15:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the copyright registration? Trade (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade """Results obtained through the CPRS pilot should not be used for legal purposes.""" it is from disclaimer. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 04:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are deletion requests now considered a court of law? Trade (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - registered copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]