Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Delicatearch.jpg

Delicate Arch

 * Reason:I'm not sure of the status of this image. It doesn't have a FP template on it (either here at WP or at Commons), but I didn't notice a delisting nomination in its history either. It is located in the gallery of FPs, though. Anyway, this definitely does not meet today's quality standards, and therefore should lose its FP status.
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Delicatearch.jpg
 * Nominator:  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣


 * Delist &mdash;  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣ kiss mei'm Irish ♣ 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist (see below) per nom. I must say I spent a bit of time searching through the file history and nom history to see whether the original voting didn't take place on a different image, but this looks like it. Note it has been shunted from the Delicate Arch article, with probably a good half-dozen better images in there (compare it to something like Delicate arch sunset.jpg). Would seem to be a matter of time before someone wakes up and does the same in the other articles as well. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delist. — A itias  //  discussion  23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist Something in the water? Fletcher (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually this isn't the picture that got promoted as FP. That one was moved to the commons and renamed File:Delicatearch1.jpg.Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why the file history said it was uploaded in April 2007, two years after the nomination/promotion, but couldn't see any change on the file or nomination history to explain (having said which the file history on this one still says Nov 2006, again long after the promotion, but I guess that's when it was moved). Looks like another case of dubious file-handling between Commons & WP. How did you find out this was the promoted one? --jjron (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, so I could see the deleted image wasn't the same. And the old revision of the page indicates which commons file this was a duplicate of. Normally the deleter really should include this in the deletion summary. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This image is much higher quality. Not sure I would suggest delist so quickly. But that said, the image only links to this page; it's not used in any articles. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This should probably be closed and the necessary link fixes made since this doesn't seem to be so much of a delist issue as an issue of there being a sloppy move when dealing with cross-wiki linking. Cat-five - talk 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and have struck my delist 'vote'. At the least I think this delist should be speedy closed and a new one opened (relevant concerns about it not being in an article are noted). However, even then, I think the one we're all voting to delist should be dumped from all articles and replaced with one of many better ones, likely including the current FP one - presumably it was the uploader who placed it in all the articles, possibly replacing better images, or it may have picked up bonus links when the other one was moved to a different name. --jjron (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)