Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab AcademyWikiArticle.pdf


 * 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. There appears to be a conclusion that the material is non-notable even if it were in an acceptable format, and with copyright problems resolved. -Splash - tk 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Arab AcademyWikiArticle.pdf]]

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wrong way to upload information to wikipedia. Both files are not being used/linked to any other pages. The copyright is also a bit iffy. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Yeah, technically this should go to IfD, but it's really kind of sort of an article, or at least that was the uploader's intent. Never mind that the AfD template is yelling at you. These are possibly copyrighted PDFs without any context, and should be deleted for that reason. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've actually deleted a few pdf's through IfD, but when I list them in IfD, many people just get tired of looking at the pdf's. I think we need a PDFfD. XD Undeath (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. AFD is the appropriate place for this, and maybe we should add something to that effect in WP:IFD. Otherwise, there's Di-orphaned fair use.--Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this isn't a useful way to put information into WP, but as articles they would get deleted anyway; no sources, the first document indicates no notability for its subject, the second is OR. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Second one of these in as many days.  The file itself describes an Arabic as a second language school, with further text extolling the value of Arabic language skills for businesspeople.  But the PDF format is just broken, here.  PDFs can't be wikified, sent to appropriate categories, or edited by other users.  I'd be inclined to add "articles submitted in PDF formats" to the general category for speedy deletion, since I can't imagine why we'd ever want to host information in PDF format. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and consider The solution to material in unacceptable formats is to have it rewritten properly. I ssume naivity rather than a deliberate attempt to violate our rules.. DGG (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We could copy-and-paste the content into an article in MediaWiki format, put a note on the talk page explaining its origins, and send the PDF to CSD.  But even if we did that, it would still be about what appears to be a minor, non-notable institution.  Best to get rid of it without wasting any time or effort on it.  --RFBailey (talk) 04:46, 8 March 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.