Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Raven Manet E2.jpg

Upside down chair from The Raven edit

Illustration for The Raven

Reason: Not used in any articles.
Articles this image appears in: None.
Previous nomination/s: original nomination
Nominator: Papa Lima Whiskey (talk)

Delist — Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question One of the other pictures in this set, File:Raven Manet B2.jpg, isn't used in any articles either. Any reason you didn't nom it as well? And a procedural questions as well: can the individual images of a set even be delisted or is it all or nothing? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, every image within the set is a featured picture in its own right. I did attempt to propose a separate featured sets procedure, but no one was too enthusiastic. J Milburn (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See article history and talk page. This was in the article until yesterday when a brief edit war occurred. Editors have paused to discuss the image and its placement. Please wait for normal editorial discussion to conclude before nominating for delisting. Durova⁴¹² 15:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Obviously upside down, no need to ask an art professor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it's upside-down (look at the signature - it's clearly got an upside down E at the right and an M further on), but I see no need to delist it - a simple rotation would fix it. Time3000 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until the editorial matter is resolved. See Talk:The Raven#Which way is up?. After that we can make a decision. Agree with Time3000 - if consensus decides it should flipped, then it should be flipped. No reason to delist over that. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, or rotate. I undid the close as "keep". I removed it from the article and provided the reliable sources to back the correct orientation, everything else is noise and was a waste of contributor's time. This problem was pointed out in the the first review, it has caused disruption ever since. cygnis insignis 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I don't think this can be kept while it fails the formal criterion of inclusion in an article. We can keep it open for a little while, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this art professor thing: Has this individual been named and verified? Where would one find his or her Special:Contributions (if they're a wiki user)? Does the opinion of one expert trump, or obsolete the need for, peer-reviewed reliable sources (i.e. sources that constitute consensus among several experts)? Do we have an OTRS-style system for expert evidence that allows independent verification of what the expert said? Does selecting and/or asking an expert constitute Original Research? Does a problem of multiple testing and hidden data arise? (see Fabrication (science), esp., at the time of this writing, the third bullet point) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 delist votes (of a required 5) after much more than 7 days. Regardless of whether this meets the FP criteria, this nomination is an obvious keep. Feel free to re-nominate it once consensus develops at the article and its talk page. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]