The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 3. FASTILY 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
In light of the examples cited at commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States_of_America it seems pretty clear to me that this logo is too simple. Note that there is currently the same logo at Commons with the same title and with the "too simple for copyright" license, so we could simply delete the local version. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned about the copyright of the background image/the cover. A photo of a cover is a derivative work of the cover, and it's not clear that the background photo is under a free licence at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Logo in the corner does not satisfy PD-text - FASTILY 03:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I am concerned about the copyright of the background image/the cover. A photo of a cover is a derivative work of the cover, and it's not clear that the background photo is under a free licence at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This logo is present on Commons with the claim that it was used in 1865. If that is true - Nokia was established in 1865 but I am not sure about the logo - then it's no longer copyrighted and the local version thus unnecessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an identical duplication in Commons. Unnamelessness ( talk) 10:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an identical duplication in Commons. Unnamelessness ( talk) 10:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Fails WP:NFCC#8 as visual identification - this is not significantly increasing the readers understanding. There would be no reasonable additional commentary to warrant the photo. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)