Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image:ATLANTIS.pdf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was delete. Singularity 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ATLANTIS.pdf

Image:ATLANTIS.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is original research, is it appropriate to be stored here? It isn't published anywhere (which is why it was put here, so Italianboy101 (who also used Dougwellera as a login until blocked) could use it as a reference in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Thanks Doug Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete an essay promoting the author's original ideas and interpretations of ancient primary sources. Quotes like "Suggestions for further readings that support my idea of Sicily being the Pillars of Hercules" show it's pure WP:OR. Not to mention, from the purely technical standpoint, we want Wikitext, not PDF files with embedded images that are hard to reuse. cab (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you can't find someone to host your PDF, then the contents probably aren't all that reliable. Totally improper use of the Media: namespace. I must admit this is the first time I've seen a case like this though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per WP:NOR and Lankiveil. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an essay per nom. Note that the AfD template yells at you though for putting this in AfD instead of IfD; however, it's kind of a borderline case here so I'll just let the template yell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Articles can't be submitted as PDF's, because they must be editable by normal article editing processes. It may be a GFDL violation; it certainly seems contrary to the premise of Wikipedia to host any article in non-plaintext form. It does seem to be somewhat of a pickle where this should be discussed. But, as A. P. Herbert observed, "there is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, there's an interesting question. "Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include ... PDF designed for human modification. ... Opaque formats include ... the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only." Dunno which case this falls under. cab (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.