Commons:Deletion requests/Ryanair logos

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Ryanair logos|year=2024|month=April|day=30}} to the description page of each file. Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Ryanair logos|plural}} ~~~~ Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Ryanair logos}} at the end of today's log.

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.

Ryanair logos

• File:Arpa Ryanair.png
• File:Ryanair Holdings Logo.png
• File:Ryanair Logo.svg

Cagliost removed the TOO license tag from these files. I agree for the holdings logo, but I'm not too sure about the other two. The only ambiguous part is that harp, but I don't think it's clear cut enough to let it be speedily deleted for no license information.

See also User talk:Cagliost#Ryanair Logo, User talk:Airlineuploader#Not public domain. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I was a repeat offender in rolling back the changes because it removed the license, not because I didn't agree with a hypothetical elimination (I also specified this to him in his discussion). In any case, however, I said that on Commons I have also seen even more complex logos, then, since the other two logos had been there for some time (the harp alone and the holdings logo) I uploaded this one which is even easier (and also the official one) Giov.c (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Ryanair harp is not a simple geometric shape, it is a distinctive original work. I think the best solution here is for the files to be deleted from Commons, and re-uploaded directly to English Wikipedia. Cagliost (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please may this now be closed? Cagliost (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty annoying when people impose bureaucratic process to slow everything down for what should have been a very simple decision (Be Bold, and be done with it). Cagliost (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a very clear case of copyright infringement, and no serious argument has been advanced that it is not. The only argument above is that other copyright infringement also exists on Commons, and therefore this copyright infringement should be kept too. Absurd! Cagliost (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)