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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. JujutacularT · C 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not promoted --Elekhh (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
