The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was shut down the Valued Pictures process. The consensus of this discussion is that while the project started as a good idea, and there is indeed merit to a image recognition process not as exclusive as Wikipedia:Featured pictures, the fundamental flaws which define this project prevent it from being useful to Wikipedia. There is no consensus that the amount of participants is necessarily a problem, or that an image recognition process which are a step below FP is inherently a bad idea. For the time being, however, this particular image recognition process is going to be shut down. Should a new one take its place, it has to be based on some concrete ideas and philosophies so that it can be of value to Wikipedia. Anything which is just a carbon copy of Valued Pictures will get shut down again (if not CSD G4-deleted). As for the pages themselves, I will be preserving their histories by redirecting them to the main project page, which will be marked as historical. harej 04:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Valued pictures[edit]

The Valued Picture project is about 2 years old by now, but it has never taken off and appears to have been in a near-dead condition for some months now. The best I can tell, the original idea was to create something like a GA-type counterpart to WP:FP. However, experience has shown that there is neither need no room for a lower grade alternative to WP:FP. The standards in WP:VP appear to be fairly low, as is the level of discussion (most arguments are of the type "High EV quality", "Cool picture", etc). The VP project appears to be under-active, poorly defined and not really useful. Few people outside of the several VP regulars know about it; it is basically shunned by the WP:FP participants and the only little recognition the project has received seems to be at WikiCup. Looking at the archives for the last few months, it appears that the entire project is basically limited to a group of about 7-8 regulars (Extra999, TonyTheTiger, Nergaal, Elekhh, Acather96,IdLoveOne, Resident Mario, Spongie555) who account for making almost all nominations and for almost all participation in the nomination discussions. There are a few occasional passers-by but for the most part the project now appears to consist of this group of users making nominations and discussing them among themselves. The project has basically became an end unto itself, with not much point to it. There have been periodic calls for reform and for marking the project as historical (see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 4#Dead project?, Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 4#Completely shut down and Mark Historical, Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 5#Time to start over? J Milburn's proposal, Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates#Dead Project 2: The MfD). However, nothing ever happens, and the wikiproject keeps limping along in a moribund state. So I think it is time for the nuclear option. Nsk92 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages included in this nomination are:

• Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates
• Wikipedia:Valued pictures thumbs
• Wikipedia:Valued picture criteria

as well as all their subpages, talk pages and their archives.

See previous MfD discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Valued pictures 2
• Strong Keep In no way is VP dead, or near dead. Since the last MFD, activity has picked up, and there are no longer masses of unreviewed nominations. The project is useful to recognise media that doesn't meet the high FP quality standards, but is of high encyclopedic value. I'm all for encouraging new users to contribute, but deleting it would solve nothing and benefit nobody. Acather96 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what happened last times it was listed for deletion, the listing of it, and discussion of it spurs new interest which lasts a few months, but by the end of winter it's going to be just as dead as it was. The decision to delete it was already made I think... — raekyt 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, you can't tell the future, and at the moment, VP is doing just fine. There has been no drop in activity, everything has been running smoothly. VP has found a new group (since the last MFD) of editors willing to contribute, all bringing new life to the project. VP is doing no harm, it is benefiting the project by recognising and promoting some our of media with high encyclopaedic value. Acather96 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is not the lack of members. The problem is the lack of direction, and the fact it serves no purpose. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That means that at least partially you disagree with the reasons put forward in this nomination. --Elekhh (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I do. If I'm honest, I was a little disappointed to see this nomination put forward with that reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Acather --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical — raekyt 12:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Acather96...plus more VPs, is more I can show off on my user page! :) CTJF83 chat 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical per RaekyT. The only spikes in activity seem to have come as direct result of the past MFDs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This project is no where near dead or inactive. In fact, it's more busier than ever. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 20:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't see too much inactivity. Derild4921Review Me! 22:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is way more active then before. Spongie555 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical. It's time for this to go. I was previously a vocal and active supporter of the project; the closest thing it has had to outside recognition (the use on a couple of portals and recognition in the WikiCup) was pretty much down to me (I was the portals' author, and the WikiCup judge who suggested and eventually implemented points for VPs). I have even done my bit to kick some life back into the project, with a proposal for a complete reworking, which would have had the chance to turn VP into something meaningful. That's the problem with VPs- they're meaningless, nobody cares. The whole point of VPC was that it was a chance to recognise pictures of high EV which were not strong enough technically for FP status, but that is, for the most part, apparently ignored now. ("VP is less harsh about the EV then FP is", "Probably wont pass FP beacuse it has low EV"- admittedly, both failed due to lack of comments, but it certainly gives an idea of how the project works...). The problems of complete lack of direction, standards, participants, recognition, purpose and use are compounded by the fact the "regulars" (who, fairly or unfairly, I would say are often editors who consider the standards a little high at FPC, or who have to some extent struggled to understand how FPC works) are extremely resistant to any kind of change beyond the superficial (a change in logo, recognition in The Signpost and ways to make things easier to promote are favourite topics of conversation, when there are more glaring issues that need to be dealt with...). The experiment has been tried, and, sadly, it has failed. Let it go, it's not helping anyone any more. J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have called for participation in this discussion here and here. J Milburn (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical - As J Milburn notes, this project has basically no impact whatsoever outside of its own processes. Despite not insignificant numbers of users calling for reform of the project, there have been few changes, even since the MFD 18 months ago. There have been no significant changes to the criteria since 2008. There still doesn't appear to be any requirement for high encyclopedia value. To quote myself from the June 2009 MFD, "looking at the actual valued pictures, the only real criteria seem to be: its the main or one of the main images in the article and it isn't crap. If it is kept, it really needs some better defined, less subjective criteria to determine educational value, as that's really the only criterion it has that isn't just a technicality." Looking at the recently promoted images and the lack of change to the criteria, there has been no real improvement on this front. Mr.Z-man 01:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK, so nothing ever happens despite proposals. So WP:BOLD and fix it. VP is valuable to a point, but not a small point imo. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not that simple. As J Milburn pointed out, there is active resistance among the participants to change. Even then, you can't edit people. Just because someone changes the criteria doesn't mean everyone else is going to start following it. Mr.Z-man 05:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not mix up things: bringing up arguments against a particular proposal is not general resistance to change. Yes there has been a split of opinions as of how to improve the process (some arguing for a GA-equivalent approach, others for a different FP-equal approach), which (since we need consensus and not simple majority) has been an impediment to change. However closing the project is a rather self-defeating way of solving a disagreement. --Elekhh (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it really matter? Resistance to change or a polarizing dispute, the end result is exactly the same - we're stuck with the status quo because every proposal for change fails. Mr.Z-man 15:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we usually wouldn't take something to MfD just because people disagree on how to move forward with a potentially viable project. If "RfA is broken" we don't take it to MfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we just let them sit around forever, not improving, or even getting worse. How well has doing nothing worked out for RFA? RFA is a necessary system, shutting it down without a replacement would cause significant disruption; the same can't be said for this. Mr.Z-man 06:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Should not be deleted, but marked {{failed}} or {{historical}}. It is difficult to mark historical as it is not inactive. This discussion is about forcefully closing an active part of the project, and should be moved elsewhere as an RFC. Setting aside the point that it is not inactive, the case for closing it down seems reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarified !Vote below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close it down (historical or failed). The project's standards and goals are unclear, participation is low (unless people are using it as a low-hassle method to score points in the Wikicup for not-particularly-exciting photos), and the VPC group's reaction seems to be to fiddle whilst Rome burns, discussing new logos and barnstars, and discussing whether to lower the numerical threshold required to pass further. As J Milburn has said on the VPC talk page, it's underactive, undefined and not particularly useful. It may still be active, with a small group of enthusiasts, but to have it as a sister project to FPC or a parallel project to GA is no longer appropriate. And there's no point people complaining that it would work if only the project had more recognition: there are hundreds of links to it around Wikipedia already with little to show for it. Bencherlite^Talk 10:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely keep the WP:VPICS is a coordinator of a Valued pictures. In the commons exist Featured Pictures « CA » ^Talk 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Note to closer- this comment originally read differently, it was changed in this edit. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because...? Mr.Z-man 15:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the point. The project is broken; there just happens to be a small number of users who are under the impression that if they carry on doing what they're doing and shout at anyone who points out the obvious, the fact it's broken won't matter. The project serves no purpose; inactivity is not, as such, a problem- just look at the likes of FPOC. However, the fact that the system itself is flawed is. More active participation is not what is needed- change is what is needed. Since that change has not been forthcoming, it's simply time to do away with the project. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The because is this: the WP:VPICS is a coordinator of a Valued pictures. In the commons exist Featured Pictures. J Milburn: Well your opinion, but not contest the my opinion. If your opinion says that the WP:VPICS is useless, for me no. « CA » ^Talk 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? We're not here to say "this is my opinion, that's yours" and assert our opinions, we're here to discuss the issue and work out the best way forward. This is not a vote. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have correpted. J Milburn: Quiet :) « CA » ^Talk 13:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your argument still makes absolutely no sense. I'm assuming there's a language barrier- what you're saying doesn't mean anything. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK « CA » ^Talk 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and set a one year moratorium on similar MfDs to allow the project to normally function and improve. The "low participation" argument is surprising, as it sets a new standard, based on which most WikiProjects would need to be deleted. In terms of uselessness I disagree, and I listed previously some of its uses. More importantly I think VP plays a significant role in keeping Wikipedia open. Regarding the need of improvement I do agree, yet one has to acknowledge that there are a number of reasons why the project had it difficult to thrive: first, it is constantly disrupted with MfDs (first MfD came 7 months after the project being established, second MfD 4 months later, than a "dead project?" discussion has been initiated 8 months later, followed by an attempt to forcefully shut it down the next month, followed by a MfD threat the following month and now another 3 months later a third formal MfD). I am sure many abandoned the project and many, as myself, lost enthusiasm for this very reason (is simply not pleasant to be told all the time that what you are doing is "dead"). The repeated tagging of the pages as "considered for deletion" wasn't helping participation either. Second, while it is obvious the aim of VP is linked to FP and therefore the two projects should have been sisters (see also MfD 2 conclusion closing sentence), proposals of improving linkages (between VP and FP or the peer review process) have been consistently opposed by FP participants. Therefore I think keeping the project should be done in conjunction with a one year moratorium on similar MfDs, so that the project has a fair chance to develop. --Elekhh (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been 3 MfDs over an approximately 18 month period, that still leaves ample time for improvement. You pointed out yourself that there was at one point an 8 month window between discussions, yet, no improvements were made. Is 12 months really going to make that much of a difference? If there's no threat of ending the project, there's no incentive for people to improve it. A better moratorium would be a moratorium on new VP nominations until the project is fixed. Mr.Z-man 06:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " If there's no threat of ending the project, there's no incentive for people to improve it" does not work with me. I don't like fights and I tend to leave. --Elekhh (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed that the "lack of participation" argument is nonsense, and yes, I did once look at this as you did; a project that could well have some worth, and just needed some time/effort to get right. The trouble is that this is not being fixed- none of the people originally involved are still involved, and the project has been taken over in the most part by a "new generation" of VPICers, often people who have struggled at FPC for whatever reason, creating something of a walled garden. What, precisely, VP is now is unclear, but it's certainly nothing to do with the criteria, or any criteria that are of any use. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical per nom and others such as raetky. This thing has no clear purpose, and amount to little more than a few people giving each others pats on the back. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical I notice that most of the people rushing to the project's defence are those named by Nsk92. As an occasional Commons user, I have to confess to a certain degree of confusion regarding the project and its difference from FP. Most of the VP-tagged images I've seen haven't been particularly good quality, nor are they any better than other mediocre images I've seen that are not so tagged. FP, on the other hand, is a great way to admire some of the best of the best and possibly find a few new desktop pictures. To an outsider like me, the VP tag (even now that I understand what it is supposed to be for) is irrelevant. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep closing down a project because in the last few months only 7-8 editors nominated and voted is a poor reasoning. FPs has only slightly more voters, FT/GT has something similar, FL probably has about the same number of reviewers, and FS has about this number of nominations in the last year. None of these processes were even remotely suggested to be MfDed. Seriously, why keep FS alive if it is more dead than a project that has been MfFed 3 times in 18 months? Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FSC has clear goals and criteria. It has a well-defined nook within the project. It has a level of community support and recognition. VPC has none of these things. It's annoying that this MfD has focused on the irrelevant argument of lack of participation, but there you go. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not clear on the exact difference between the VP criteria and Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. The VP criteria say "encyclopedically valuable" and FP criteria say "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." It looks like FP covers encyclopedic value already, so I'm not sure what VP is adding or covering that FP doesn't already. Has this project been created because there's a feeling that some pictures of value are being rejected by FP? If so, I don't see where in the VP criteria that this project is picking up what FP is rejecting. An image is not like an article - it cannot really be improved other than technically cleaned up. My understanding is that if a picture is submitted to FP and it is technically below par, then it is cleaned up as part of the selection process, and if it cannot be cleaned up enough, it is rejected. Is this project aimed at sweeping up images that are technically poor, but have educational value? If so, then FP already covers that with: "Exceptions to this rule [Is of a high technical standard] may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." Without some clarity regarding purpose, and essentially the difference to FP, then I would agree that this project serves no useful purpose, and should be marked historical. If there is some clarity and purpose given which indicates the project would be worthwhile then it should be allowed to develop a bit further on the grounds that it is not actually harmful or disruptive. I'd like to see a rationale for the project, and the criteria tightened up.SilkTork *^YES! 11:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could talk for a while about the initial philosophy behind the project, but the problem is that those initial ideals are now completely ignored. Instead, we have a "not gonna pass FPC? Bring it here! We don't judge!" mentality. There's no rhyme or reason to what passes and doesn't pass, and the criteria are all but ignored. There is no rationale any more beyond a vague "FPC is too tough", and, as I've discussed, sadly the regulars are extremely resistant to any discussion of the criteria; instead, people are concerned with barnstars and things. VPC became a "let's get shinies!" rather than any serious attempt to gather pictures worth recognising. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the discussions here? SilkTork *^YES! 16:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through and found that I left a note that the consensus was to mark the project as historical in August pending a discussion to restructure it, leaving a note on the talkpage. The resulting discussions were not successful, though the note was removed. It appears that the project is problematic, it is unclear and has been questioned several times. The usual route for unsuccessful WikiProjects is to mark them as Historic - though a previous consensus on that was overturned without a clear restructure plan. If VP is going to continue to be problematic, is unable to restructure itself, and is going to ignore community consensus, then deletion is an appropriate action. The project appears harmless, though it bubbles under, causing some unease and dissent, and ignores wider consensus. Yes. Delete. SilkTork *^YES! 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I understand how Featured Article and Good Article processes encourage creation and improvement of good articles. Presumably Featured Pictures encourages the creation (and to a lesser extent improvement) of good pictures. If kept I'd prefer to see it renamed Good Pictures for consistency with Good Articles, but if the process encourages some people to create and improve pictures, it's serving its purpose. So unless it is somehow harmful, the fact that it's lowish activity and could do with improvement doesn't seem enough to abolish it. There are some complaints about the difficulty of reforming it due to resistance from core participants, but this is slightly contradictory to the notion of low activity: it shouldn't be hard for an RFC on WP:CENT to ensure the wider community view on what should be done prevails. So, Question: is it doing any harm? Rd232 ^talk 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Good pictures" would be something very different to valued pictures- it's not a matter of consistency, it's a question of what the purpose/goal of the project is. As I have argued, the issue of low activity is frankly irrelevant, and I think the fact this MfD is focused on that is a shame. You ask whether the project is doing any harm- yes, it is. What we have here is a pet project with no goals or standards masquerading as something with community support and recognition. Any positives that any of the featured processes have, this does not have; it just ends up being a sap of volunteer time and effort. There is no point. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Good pictures" would be something very different to valued pictures" - how and why? And no-one has to participate in this process who doesn't want to; if it motivates the participants to improve picture content, that seems harmless. Rd232 ^talk 13:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Valued pictures was not meant to be a "oh, not good enough for featured picture, have a go at valued picture!"- "Good pictures" would be a silver medal, about recognising "good but not good enough". Valued pictures was meant to be about recognising value without FPC's stringent quality criteria. Your argument about people not having to participate could equally apply to just about any process- Wikipedia is not here to be a free-for-all. If a project is not serving the encyclopedia's interests, it needs to go. If this was just sitting around in the userspace, it would be an irritant, but at least it would be out of the way. As it is, it slaps meaningless banners all over pictures and proudly sits in the project space alongside processes that do have some worth; to repeat, this is a pet project masquerading as something serious. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between "good pictures" and "valued pictures" from your reply. And why is it an irritant? If it motivates the participants and bothers no-one else, what's the problem? Also, would you support giving the project another chance if renamed to Good Pictures? Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it. "Good pictures" would be a completely different project; in any case, I don't see why a rename would change anything. As I said, I was at one stage a big supporter of this project; until recently I still hoped it could be "cured"- it just now feels like it has failed. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, "good pictures" would have only slightly lower standards than featured pictures; the quality and encyclopedic value standards would both be slightly lower than FP. "Valued pictures" would be primarily concerned with value; the quality standard would be lower than FP, but the EV standard would be the same, or even higher. Right now, the project is acting more like "C-class pictures" where the EV standard seems to be "Is it used in an article?" and the quality standard is "Does its presence not worsen the article?" Mr.Z-man 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Am I the only one who thinks reformulating it as Good Pictures is worth trying? Rd232 ^talk 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there was a decay in quality in the last months, that in my perception was the result of the "this project will be MfD-ed for lack of activity" campaign started in July, which scared some of the participants and made them very eager to produce "activity". So much about the educative value of the stick. And as long unconstructive MfDs will continue it will not be able to develop, so yes better close it now - I will be relieved. Otherwise, to understand its purpose one best should go back to the earlier promotions, like this, this, or this to see what VP is supposed to stand for: images which truly comply with criteria 2 "It is among Wikipedia's most educational work". FP rewards ca 0.1% of images on Wikipedia (my rough estimate) and dismissed many great images on technical grounds. There should be space for differentiation among the remaining 99.9%. "Good" might be an understatement for these images, while "valued" is in relationship with "most educational", but again is problematic as it sounds very subjective. --Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreatBlueHeroneatingturtle08.jpg is still a good example of the problems with VP. What makes this "among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer." We have several other very similar images, including one that's an FP. We have no shortage of images of great blue herons eating things; 2 of those other images (including the FP) are even in the article. Or for File:Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg, what makes it any more encyclopedic than the other 70 or so images of the aftermath on Commons? There's basically no discussion in any VP nomination, so its impossible to tell if these factors were even considered. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical—seems useless but harmless. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more? seems useless but harmless is a poor reasoning --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. If something does not serve to help the encyclopedia, it should go. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Tony's note: Highlighting and recognizing modestly high quality and high EV image work - it serves a meaningful purpose. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, if it was doing that, perhaps it would be. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical Lacks a clear purpose; does not add a clear benefit to the encylopedia, and as such is a timesink (i.e., therefore a net negative to the project). Sasata (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical - per J Milburn. Only reason for the existence of VP is to further a reward culture among its few participants. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close down and protect. Consensus here seem to be that this activity should be closed down against the opinions of its participants. Per SilkTork (16:51, 5 December 2010), there is a case for protection to prevent this discussion from being simply ignored. Regarding taggery, neither {{failed}} nor {{historical}} is suitable, and I just created {{Closed down}} for this sort of case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participants opinions weigh no less or more than non-participants. Protecting it cause you assume it will be recreated is also poor reasoning, we don't protect every page delete from WP:AFD, nor should this be because it might be recreated and this discussion ignored. CTJF83 chat 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, no, there is no difference in weight- votes don't have much in the way of "weight", as this is not a vote. It is an interest point to consider, however. By comparison, if someone was to, for instance, nominate FSC for deletion on the grounds of limited participation, I would argue in its favour, despite having participated only once. As for the protection issue, that seems a reasonable rationale for protection in theory- no, we don't protect every page deleted at AfD, but we protect those which are likely to come flying back. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ya, but there is no evidence the page would be recreated just to spite this MfD CTJF83 chat 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Last time it was marked as historical, things just carried on as normal until someone just removed the banner? J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participant's opinions should weigh a great deal. It is their time to spend. The relevant question to me is "does it disrupt". Several here seem to say it does. Past continuations contrary to an established consensus is a reason for protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is their time to spend, but Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If they want to spend their time doing something, there is Wikia, or forums, or whatever. Wikipedia is here as an encyclopedia- if something in the Wikipedia space is not in the interests of the encyclopedia, it should go. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of the reasons to close it down, NOTWEBHOST is not one of them. These activities are clearly project related. Disagreeing that it has net worth does not make it a NOTWEBHOST issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For what it's worth, I support the use of something like {{Closed down}} as a more appropriate template than the historical one- basically the same thing, but a clearer explanation of what has happened in this case. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical or closed: my apologies, but this concept is mostly useless and I know from firsthand experience: a while back I posted a few images at VP because they improved GA's but were not at the quality of FP's. Because of image quality, they were not promoted. This left me confused since I was under the impression that encyclopedic value was favored over quality. Additionally, I received no constructive feedback on how the images or their placement in the articles could be improved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason why to delete this. It isn't hurting anything by existing, and who knows, someone might look at it once a year. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but mark as Semi-active for now, then historical later; if it's still got some regular contributors then that should be reason enough to keep it, however I usually consider these types of processes as belonging on Commons anyway, not here, as the Commons:Valued images project is way more active. -- œ^™ 02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't they use Commons' VP process? Hosting it here with only seven to eight contributors and unclear (not enforced? not uniformly enforced?) criteria is fostering a reward culture where they reward each other for substandard imagery. It is not a community process in any sense of the term. At the least it should be moved to userspace or closed down entirely. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well.. I would argue that seven to eight contributors is still a community, and it's not exactly their fault that others aren't getting involved.. I do think the ideal result would be if these users just devoted their efforts to the Commons process instead, but as long as they're keeping it active and they're improving the encyclopedia in good faith, we really have no right to try to shut them down. -- œ^™ 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we are just coming from two separate schools of thought. For me, seven to eight active members is a great number, even fantastic, for most smaller WikiProjects, but for a Wikipedia-wide content rating process, I don't believe it is enough. Fundamental disagreement between us. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical Noodle snacks (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical or closed per J Milburn, and encourage people to participate in the Commons equivalent. the wub "?!" 13:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical and lock page - Whether it's proponents (and I'm myself to an extent one of those proponents) like it or not, this existing idea of a second level or type of recognized picture seems to be likely to encounter opposition on the basis of its history. A better idea would be to start from scratch with a different name, establish a widespread acceptance of the terms of selection of pictures, and basically start over again. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical. It was a good idea, but there doesn't seem to be enough energy to keep it going in a meaningful way. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is serving a purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is?--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting and recognizing modestly high quality and high EV image work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible merge with WP:Featured pictures, which serves a similar purpose. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gonna be possible- VP split off from FP originally as an attempt to recognise highly valuable material that did not meet FPC's high quality standards. It's now become... Something else. What does VPC have that would improve FPC? What is worth merging? J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's really touching on a core issue here. The two projects are indeed serving a similar purpose, thus the idea of merger is logical, yet currently not even collaboration is possible due to consistent opposition from FP participants (and sustained attempts of anihilation). --Elekhh (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trying to pin problems on the stubborness FPC crowd is a little... Rich. I repeat- what does VPC have that FPC will benefit from? VPC was based on FPC; there's nothing of value worth merging back. J Milburn (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, MfDs for VP supposedly being "disruptive", than MfD for being already "dead" or having "low activity" turning into MfD for having "no purpose", that's "... Rich". --Elekhh (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that there are many arguments against VPC and many reasons people want it gone is not the fault of FPC regulars. My issue with VPC, while I have had one, has always been the lack of purpose. J Milburn (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find the delete arguments unconvincing. The notions that it is a timewaster particpated in by a small group wanting to give each other pats on the back could be made for most Wikiprojects or for Wikipedia itself. Everybody editing Wikipedia is a volunteer, and there is no other venue for images that do not rise to the majesty of Featured Pictures. Creating an FP level image is outside my camera's capabilities, but it is perfectly able to take a shot of a building to illustrate an article on a NRHP. I was planning on using VP for the Wikicup. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any good WikiProject exists to aid/facilitate people in doing something necessary- writing on a specific topic, dealing with a certain process, etc. There are plenty of venues on Commons for recognising images; Wikipedia is, first and formost, an encyclopedia; yes, the community accepts as a whole that there is room for a featured article process (based mainly on encyclopedic value) but the criteria for VPC have become so low as to be worthless. That you were "planning on using VP for the Wikicup" really speaks for itself, and is hardly an argument in favour of the project... J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One VP criterion is that "it has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month." Therefore photos are vetted by more than just the few participants at VPC. Given the work involved in getting a nice shot (mine, so far), it is nice to have feedback. With contestants in the WikiCup scrutinizing each other's contributions, even more eyes will be on the images. As for things that are "hardly an argument in favour of the project", the WikiCup itself could be deleted under the arguments made above. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should get File:GonzalesObelisk.JPG, File:GonzalesObelisk.JPG, File:StPetersColumbiaSC.JPG, File:AmityvilleVillageHall.jpg nominated. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are plenty of people who have called for the deletion of the WikiCup. I would, obviously, defend it, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you want recognition for your photos, Commons is more the project for you. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What arguments would you use to defend the Cup? Exactly the same ones people have used to defend VP. I don't want recognition, I want feedback. Abductive (reasoning) 13:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I most certainly would not. We are not here to discuss the Cup. For feedback on images, we already have picture peer review- if that's what you are looking for, use that process. J Milburn (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The WikiCup is a competition, done for fun, to encourage people to produce high quality content, using existing processes (FA, GA, etc...) which all have clear purposes independent of the WikiCup. VP has no clear purpose, and doesn't do much other than allow a small group of editors to give each others shinies, as evidence by the fact that you're bringing in the Wikicup to legitimize VP. As for the "needs to have been used for one month" to insure "vetting", it's a joke of a criterion. Ugly images are used for years because there are no alternatives, or no one bothered to upload better stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • In AfD discussions, the debate centers around what the article could be, not how it is currently written. I perceive a clear purpose (but poor instructions) in VP. Valued Pictures are supposed to add to encyclopedic value, not be pretty (that's Featured Pictures). An ugly picture is better than none. Take for example Parasilurus asotus, a catfish consumed in large numbers in Asia. When I found the article it had no picture. I discovered a technically lousy photograph of a statue of this fish, which I added to the article. Yes, the image could be better, but it conveys so much; people love this catfish so much they erected a statue to it. Abductive (reasoning) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • By this reasoning, we should have a bot add "Valued picture" to all free images on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I understand you guy's frustration with the current VP, but they are capable of providing guidance. Abductive (reasoning) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anyway, everything people to Wikipedia is done for fun. Most Wikiprojects have only a handful of participants. Deletion is a radical step, which should be reserved for things that harm building an encyclopedia. Copyrighted material, libel and articles without notability harm building an encyclopedia. VP encourages (in a small way) adding or improving images, which some people (Visual learners) value greatly and nobody devalues. Abductive (reasoning) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just want to address some common misunderstandings in this thread: (1) "VP is a venue for a small group of people". There have been a large number of contributors in the past two years. The number of currently most active participants shall not be confused with the overall number of participants. (2) "There are sufficient similar venues on Commons". VP is Wikipedia specific, relates to the value of an image in a Wikipedia article, hence is not to be confused with any of the processes Commons uses to recognise the general value of images. (3) "VP has no purpose". This cannot be correct: participants are acting in good faith with the intention to improve Wikipedia ( = purpose). If FP distinguishes 0.1% of images on Wikipedia, VP is about the diferentiation within the remaining 99.9%. The only argument could be, that as the current state of affairs, it isn't effective enough in achieving its purpose. Yet than the answer is improve it, fix it, not close it. --Elekhh (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Abductive: Every image should add to encyclopedic value. If it doesn't, why is it in an article? VP is supposed to be about recognizing those that do an especially amazing job at that. In practice, it seems to be recognizing pretty much any image used in an article that isn't already an FP and actually identifies the subject.
                    • Standards should be tightened. Abductive (reasoning) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't disagree. But the problems have been known for at least 18 months, and there has been zero positive progress made. Its pretty clear at this point that the majority of users involved in the process are not willing to give more than lip service to change. And since they continue to press on as usual, fixing it will be more and more difficult as time passes, as more images will need to be re-evaluated. For a project that has essentially no impact outside itself, it really doesn't seem worth it. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Elekhh: In 2 years, VP has had fewer than 100 editors. In that same time period, FP has had nearly 500 and it had more than 500 in its first 2 years (19 Novermber 2003 - 19 November 2005). VP has had 18 months to improve itself, not an ounce of progress has been made; even you admitted that it has become worse in the past few months. Mr.Z-man 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Elekhh, you enter the discussion to "address some common misunderstandings", and instead of setting some of the crazy beliefs straight ("everything people to Wikipedia is done for fun", "be pretty (that's Featured Pictures)") you (deliberately or otherwise) ignore the fact that VP has changed in culture massively (yes, there were at one time more participants, so what?), misrepresent an argument I've been using (I have not once said "There are sufficient similar venues on Commons"), and apply a ridiculous definition to "purpose" (any process in which people act in good faith has a purpose? Right). Abductive, featured pictures is not about how "pretty" something is, and, as I have said, this feedback you so desperately need can be gotten through processes like picture peer review or other areas; VP was never meant to be somewhere for criticism. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • J Milburn, please retract calling me and my ideas "crazy". If you were to look at my contributions, you will see that none are trivial, and that I take a very hard line on encyclopedic value, proper sourcing and notability standards. I am not "desperately" seeking feedback, I just think it would be nice for people to have some guidance. Perhaps picture peer review and VP can be merged? Abductive (reasoning) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I said your beliefs were crazy, and reading some of what you've said, I stand by that. I used the word "desperate" as that seems to be the only real argument you have in favour of VPC. I have no idea how you could merge the two- what does VPC have that PPR would benefit from? J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Articles have a complete assessment system, FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub. Images have only FP and VP, with VP supposed to be like GA. Picture peer review could be used to assess the quality of images even if the images' creators are not participating in the review. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • VP is not "supposed to be like GA"; VP was meant to recognise high EV images without applying the same stringent quality criteria that FP applies. This is the entire problem- there's no consistent understanding about the purpose or goal of VPC. What's the point of a peer review if no one's learning? J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Isn't that similar to the FA/GA divide? I don't believe images can be assessed with quite as many levels as articles, and improving an image more than one level is impossible, but I think it should be possible to have images assessed into four classes; amazing (FP), commendable (VP), not bad (leave in place), and bad (remove from article). Abductive (reasoning) 10:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • (edit conflict) Sorry if I missunderstood the meaning of "There are plenty of venues on Commons for recognising images;" was not my intention to misrepresent your comment. It is also beyond my ability to clarify all misunderstandings in these discussions, but I welcome others to do so. I did link to my earlier answer on the question of purpose at the beginning of this MfD, hence I was short and avoided repeating myself. So no, I do not believe that good faith defines purpose. Considering your earlier comments you actually agree that there might be a VP with purpose, is just as I understand, you now take the view that is easier to close it and maybe rebuild it later than build upon what is there. That's where we diverge. --Elekhh (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's a moderately accurate representation of my views. VPC was an experiment I supported, the experiment has very much failed. It has become something worthless and directionless, and there is active resistance to it being changed in any meaningful way. If we're agreed that it's currently broken, and we're agreed it's not going to be possible to fix, I don't see how we can be disagreed on what should be done. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "Active resistance to change" is not fully accurate. As earlier explained, while there hasn't been consensus on a particular proposal, there hasn't been general resistance to change. I can't recall anybody stating that all is perfect and there is no need of improvement. And I recall that you also "resisted" one of my perhaps radical proposals of change aimed at reaching consensus by integrating the two diverging ideas of VP (GA-like vs. FP2-like) into one system. --Elekhh (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • The fact I recognise that something is broken does not mean that I'm going to support any change. Let's put it like this- if you think you can change VPC into something worthwhile, good luck. You'll need it. Ask yourself this- is it really worth the effort? Or are you going down a "some day it might work, so let's keep it and hope someone gets around to fixing it eventually" route? J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • That's a good summary I agree with, although I am more optimistic. --Elekhh (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as Historical IMO, this has always been an attempt to put lipstick on the pig. Why would anyone settle for a silver medal here when a gold medal is available at FPC, not to mention main page rights and the ability of the content to listed at the signpost and as a POTD. There is no incentive to contribute to this process, no reward to achieve, no medal to be won, nothing. Pull the plug and pronounce already. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Under that logic, WP:Good articles should also be marked as historical. Photographs are harder to improve than articles, so GA has even less reason to exist than VP. Abductive (reasoning) 00:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that would be the reason that, on those grounds, the GA process is more valuable. If images very hard to improve, what's the point in recognising the fact they've got to a certain level? One could argue that GAC is a stepping-stone to FAC. Another argument in favour of GAs has been that GAC is useful for recognising articles on topics that could never get to FA level. The same is not true of VPC; if a VP goes on to achieve FP status, it should probably have been nominated at FPC in the first place (or, if people were merely not confident enough to throw it at FPC, it should have gone to PPR)- there is little chance of "improvement" of an image in that regard. Further, there seems to be no real consideration of whether the image is of a subject which, for whatever reason, it would be near impossible to get a FA quality image of; there are VPs of common subjects, or of subjects of whom there is already FPs (sometimes making those VPs wholly superfluous- I can find examples if anyone cares). J Milburn (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark historical per above and per WP:ESPERANZA. --NYKevin @842, i.e. 19:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical Firstly, this project has and unclear scope ("adding significant encyclopedic value to its accompanying article" should apply to most images) and unclear support from the community, but does tags images with "having been selected by the community". Secondly, images have little room for improvement making this project incomparable to the (also not entirely uncontroversial) "good articles" project. Thirdly, "featured pictures" primarily exists to show the best work to the readers, while "valued pictures" mainly seem another badge that can be earned by an editor (and having too many of those reduce their value). —Ruud 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Kiss it goodbye. Mark historical, delete, close down, whatever the consensus is, I don't really care. Having been the editor that originally proposed VP (initially I suggested it run in conjunction with WP:PPR, but consensus was to run it as a separate project), and having been a vociferous supporter of the project in the previous two MfDs, I can only now concur that the project has not succeeded, and to me shows little prospects of improving - more to the point, as some others have pointed out, what direction it did have, it no longer does. While I was unaware of this MfD, by sheer chance yesterday I happened upon a train-wreck of an image and wondered what the blazes it was doing in a quite high profile article. When I clicked on it I was floored to see it tagged as a VP. It was a recent promotion, yet I had rather assumed that VP had basically ground to a halt. Prior to that, in regards to VP I would have veered down the 'it's not doing any harm' route, but after this experience I have to think even that argument is no longer valid. Presumably this image's VP status would then be used to argue for maintaining it in the article. On checking other images in the article, it also yielded an FP and a second VP (which had also been a failed FP candidate, and the reasons for it then succeeding at VP were entirely unclear). My last real attempt at reviving VP was in August 2009 when I suggested that very high EV, high value, unreplaceable, though non-free use images, should be permitted as VPs (see here). Images such as the black power salute, the tank man, and the falling man, providing a way of showcasing some of the incredible images that we have gained access to, even if in restricted form. That proposal was met with the instant rejection that Milburn discusses above. It is clear the VP people are no more amenable to suggested improvements now than back then, so I see little hope for the project ever improving. Even more than FP, it seems to have permanently lost its way. Put it to sleep. --jjron (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical. Doesn't really have a workable scope, and adding on most of what above people have said. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark the main page as historical, delete all the hundreds of subpages this project has generated. As per the last time an admin marked this historical per a discussion, and was very quickly reverted by a participant. Doesn't have a useful remit now, if it ever actually did. Courcelles 03:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards close after I voted for keep above. Also, I was wondering weather Featured Sounds should also be MfDed (the oldest two candidates are over a year old). Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My rather off-the-wall idea would be to fold FPC and FSC into a "featured media candidates". Not that it would ever get anywhere, though. Courcelles 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark as historical - Like Funny pictures and Weird pictures, Valued pictures never seem to get off the ground. Also delete Wikipedia:Valued pictures thumbs 01 and Wikipedia:Valued pictures thumbs 02. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Success at FP is (understandably) very hard to achieve. We need to have a process through which we can reward users for contributing pictures that are really good (but not quite "stellar") and make a significant improvement to an article. Wikipedia has tons of articles that are sorely lacking in pictures; let's try to fix that instead of debating the existence of a harmless project. Edge3 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do need that, VPC is not the process through which to do it. That is neither why VPC was started, nor is it what it has become. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical More complexity to the bureaucratic structure of Wikipedia, but has shown little improvement to the encyclopedia. That is, it has added another quality grade for pictures, but very few pictures are using it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical It's clear that not enough people are actually interested in this. A small flurry of activity after each MfD is not sufficient really. Gigs (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A small flurry of activity after each MfD" is just one of several complete nonsense statement repeated again and again within this discussion and elsewhere, and now becoming a myth. Anybody interested in facts just check out Category:Valued picture nominations to see that there is no such correlation. If anything, activity dropped after each Mfd: after the June 2009 MfD, in July there were only 9 nominations, after the October 2009 MfD in November there were 4 nominations, and now activity is again plummeting. Highest activity was in the months furthest from any MfD. Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Seppuku. Very tired of these discussions, my lack of success in moving it towards a meaningful debate about the purpose of the project and its role to keep Wikipedia open, acknowledging the numeric overpower of editors who are pursuing a shutdown and will continue to do so, as well as realising that I am starting to lose hope under these conditions, I am herewith committing VP-Seppuku, and will no longer participate in the project and related discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TonyTheTiger. --JN466 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical or Delete This was an ill conceived idea, which became an ill executed idea, with low participation, which now refuses to die. I'm sorry, but VP adds nothing to the project, is really not meaningful, and creates a layer of confusion for people that don't already know what it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical Not particularly active, not a good idea in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark historical per many above, I don't just don't see this process making the project better. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical per others above, especially J Milburn. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mark as historical. What commons does seems useful, but this is too ill-defined to add to the project and as such no one cares about it. It appears that this has been discussed much before with no change so there's not much else we can do but kick it to touch. Quantpole (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely Keep per tony the tiger and other above me.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the last, huge discussion about the idea of deleting VPics on the VPC talkpage I want it to be known that the number of valued pictures we have now has nearly doubled in less than 5 months. VPics is making progress and with time our standards can change and be raised and our definitions can strengthen with its growing usage. I still really love it for being an alternative to the glitzy FPics; Vpics is about valuable images and encyclopedic value, not just if the right camera was used, or if the image is big enough... --I'ḏ♥One 20:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's certainly what it started as, yes, but is by no means what it has become. Yes, a lot of images have recently been promoted, but plenty of examples have already been referred to (and I could find more...) of images with no real clearly encyclopedic value. The standards have actually fallen, and discussions have not focussed on tightening the guidelines, but barnstars, logos and even lowering standards, making it easier for images to pass... J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.