Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows Server 2003 logo without wordmark.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

above Com:TOO Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really care if this cutout of File:Windows Server 2003 logo and wordmark.svg gets deleted, but would the original file, this work is based on, then not have to be deleted too?
Some hours ago File:Windows logo with wordmark.png was deleted without any discussion. Hedwig in Washington single handed closed a related undeletion request, that was made with the aim to have a proper discussion. Some hours later Hedwig in Washington jumps to the file this section is named for and proposes that for deletion too. No proper discussion is possible, if only admins can see deleted material. Here is more information: Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains
Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains
I have no interpretation of Com:TOO, but consistency would be appreciated. Equal logos, should be treated equally. 77.179.201.26 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this DR is for, so there can be a discussion in the proper place. Other-shit-exists is not a valid argument here, neither how long potentially unfree files slumber on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 12:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was, that such a proper discussion didn't take place for File:Windows logo with wordmark.png and you killed the possibility for such a discussion by closing the request. 78.51.217.136 18:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here. Get over it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Below com:TOO. We discussed this several times in the past regarding very similar logo's. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]