Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Municipal Flag of Chicago

Municipal Flag of Chicago

 * Reason:This image has achieved the highest level of EV possible in many respects.
 * Articles this image appears in:Flag of Chicago Chicago This image links to more than 500 articles on WP, even excluding transclusions. Among its other most important uses are Chicago in article space, User Chicago, User WPChicago and UserbornChicago in numerous user space.
 * Creator:-xfi-


 * Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This flag is no more and no less valuable (I guess) than all other flags of countries, regions, cities, parties, etc. Should we promote them all? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that based upon the footnote at WP:WIAFP #5 that says, "An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article. . .", it seems that each flag that has a WP article needs to be illustrated and images of such flags have high EV. Thus, all flags that have articles on WP should be highly promotable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WIAFP #3 says, and WP:WIAVP #2 says it must be among Wikipedia's best work, or most educational work, respectively. Alves is saying there is nothing particularly distinguishing about this flag. It definitely has encyclopedic value; I don't think anyone disagrees there. However we must keep in mind the entire criteria.  Jujutacular  T · C 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, since every significant municipal flag exists on WP, this one is not FP material unless its technical merit is above average compared to other municipal flags.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not 'technical merit' but enc value, which should be exceptional in some way to justify the VP status. In this particular case, the strict technical component of the image (as a drawing) is trivial as is its illustrative component. Nothing really wrong with the image, the same happens with all other modern flags. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

--Elekhh (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)