Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2[edit]

File:RoumScientistswiki.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, seems to be being used. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. The file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.[reply]

Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already available on Wikipedia in the Book Namespace. Redundant pdf version doesn't appear to be required. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. The file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.

Delete, PDF file that aggregates several Wikipedia articles.- Andrei (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RoumSci BukPDFOkPicts.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, appears be used. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. Reply: the file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.

Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already available on Wikipedia in the Book Namespace. Redundant pdf version doesn't appear to be required. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. The file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.

Comment. I realise this is mostly Wikipedia stuff, but I'm guessing you shouldn't me re-using non-free images in the PDF. For example, the stamp picture on page 6. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SavantiRomani.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, appears be used. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. Reply: the file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.

Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already available on Wikipedia in the Book Namespace. Redundant pdf version doesn't appear to be required. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is not a redundant file as stated in the deletion intent message. This file is not available in the PDF format as incorrectly stated here. The file is needed for quick reference use in several Wikipedia articles and should not be deleted. Please do not delete file. Furthermore this file is not available in PDF format anywhere else on Wikipedia or on the web, and there are several problems often encountered with converting the XML files to the correct format and with correct content as in the assembled PDF document provided.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stalin church 1939.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

invalid fair use: not not in article about the image or the author. - Altenmann >t 05:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Unit22SS.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep; Solution Offered. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a Wikipedia page and the Wikipedia logo but licensed as public domain. Orphaned. Hekerui (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the page to reflect this--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: License has been updated, and it's not an orphan. — Bility (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:537361098RgGaIZ ph.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:536.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:53386624705 0 ALB.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:53392153 755b2fb9c5.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The source link on the image's page leads to a Flicker image licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0.--Rockfang (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete changed the license to cc-by-nc-sa --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:531341751 381f331daa.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:529146.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:452479934203 0 ALB.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept - not orphaned, all else is an editorial issue - Peripitus (Talk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Debatable quality, otherwise the nomination was poorly founded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:521870632 fc2db30e54.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:5190681a6838050241l-1.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:516626114 l.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:5106700-R42-078-37A.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:509322423 m.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:5040 (8).jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons. It is a very good shot of a Tally 5040 Passbook dot matrix printer. Apparently it is used to print in bank passbooks. The Camera exif and dust spots (which would be removed by a professional) indicate that this is user created and the licence is correct - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The file was uploaded to Commons as Tally 5040 Passbook dot matrix printer.jpg. I then cropped it to remove the blank background.--Rockfang (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted under criterion F8, since it's now on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:503006784 741c851c9a.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not state, likely copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete coyvio--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:503006772 5cc9c67531.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, likely copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete copyvio--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:503006780 e5b98e078e.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated, likely copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete coyvio--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:49450001.jpeg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues except the subjective one of quality are addressed as the file is now used in Litmus (band). If that's deleted, as seems eminently possible, then we can revisit this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.