Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 October 26



File:Teknobable.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Teknobable.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Maddyfan ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Its simply a photo of three living people the free-version of which can be obtained. I don't see how it is necessary for the infobox of article Mumbai Calling. §§ §§ {T/C} 10:36, 26 October 2012 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Archimedes pi.svg

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Archimedes pi.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by Leszek Krupinski ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This isn't how Archimedes calculated Pi. He didn't go from pentagon, to hexagon to octagon, he started with a hexagon and sucessively doubled the number of sides. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2012 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Hill Street Station illicit affair.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | links | [ logs]) – uploaded by George Ho ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads | upload log).

I have uploaded this image out of curiosity about text and images. I realize that the text is already understandable without needing faces of characters involved in the scene. George Ho (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Both halves may not be needed, but we should probably keep one half of the file. I don't know why the edits were made on October 23. It seems that they were just made so that the file would be more deletable. Why don't we revert the changes from the last week and go back to the simple file or go with the newer half. Clearly, both is an abuse of NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Either half shows only one face of either a male or female; recognizing another in either half is difficult. Perhaps you can add further about both characters involved in the subplot from this pilot episode. Can you do that? --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you can only see one face clearly in each half, but the subject only merits at most one FU image. Shoehorning a second in as you did will guarantee deletion, which may be your objective and reason for doing so. Nothing more on either character is warranted in this episode article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, either version is unnecessary for Masem, and even omitting either version (one or two halves) doesn't hurt the quality, as the text is already understood. In other words, it may fail to be irreplaceable by text. --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2012 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.