Reason

suggested by Mad Tinman in the "mad scientist" delisting for many of the same reasons, and I agree. Uninformative, and overall unimpressive by today's FP standards. It has the added problem of being a dubious free picture (Snidely Whiplash is directly mentioned in the caption from POTD 5-30-2004). It seems to have already been put up for deletion, so this delisting nom might be a moot point anyway.

Nominator

Malachirality

• Delist — Malachirality 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delist This is clip-art. Matt Deres 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delist This image is atrocious and an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the Lord God Jimbo Wales. Marmalade01 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist For the same reasons given in the mad scientist nom below, and because of the image's problematic free status (given that it's obviously based upon Snidely Whiplash). CillaИ ♦ XC 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Question How does one go about notifying a FP's creator of the delisting? -- Malachirality 02:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I would go to the uploader's talk page and leave a note with a link to the discussion. Then mention the fact here. Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Commons deletion debate. Commons VFD is, unfortunately, backlogged four months. Somebody should go and poke Fir. MER-C 06:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist per above, glad we're cleaning these out. -- Bridgecross 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist For all the above reasons. -- Mad Tinman 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist Per above. ^8thstar 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist. Testify, brothers. Spikebrennan 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delist. Adios villain, you shall taunt us no more. -- jjron 07:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I won't vote because I'm new to this, but this is an absolutely classic, iconic cartoon character that had a pretty significant influence, a near-perfect illustration of its subject. Is this simply a bias against cartoon images? If there's a concern over copyright status that should not make it any more or less eligible as a featured picture. Either it's free or it's not. That's a yes/no question, not one of degree. If by some minor miracle a cartoon character created after 1923 is in the public domain, great. If not, it will be deleted or reclassified as a non-free image, not just delisted. The mad scientist is an utterly different image - not nearly as well done, not recognizable not iconic. Basically, not a good image. Wikidemo 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep for all the same tired reasons, mainly that there's no reason to go through and remove every FP from the past just because they don't retroactively meet today's standard and this reeks of someone's anal-retentive agenda... though why someone would have an agenda like this is still beyond me. Cat-five - talk 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Please spare us the soapbox, Cat-five. How is wanting to delist this slap-dash, possibly copyright violating, image part of some agenda? It's an SVG file, so you can't even whine about people delisting it because it's too small for FP status. The thing is up for deletion on Commons, fercryinoutloud. Matt Deres 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Let's try and keep it civil, Matt - no need to loose your temper over his opinion ;) This image deserves to be delisted, it just doesn't stand on todays standards, and they are global - we strive to feature only the best content, and if we assume that our old standards, which aren't upto date with good content today, are still good, we fail - and a personal feeling that there is an agenda to delist old pictures just because they don't cut it anymore isn't a good motive. Think about pro athletes - if the bar of quality goes higher, they have to keep up or loose their status. Simples. Cheers. -- Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• But we don't cease to revere our old time sports heroes just because on a direct comparison they wouldn't be up with the current stars of today. I disagree with Cat-five re this image, but his point is valid (if a bit bluntly stated). -- jjron 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Indeed maybe that wasn't the best analogy of all - but I always figured that to oppose we had to base ourselves upon some criterion that the image holds quality or not (IE. size, and so on) - didn't know you could oppose based on the idea of an anti old-pic agenda. Well, know I do. Cheers. -- Mad Tinman _{T C} 12:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is probably the best representation of villain we will get. It is clean and SVG, it fits the criteria. I mean, would a better representation of a villain be a real photograph? No, because that would be villianizing a really person. - Fcb981^{( talk: contribs)} 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Illustrates the subject, excellent archetypal representation, free license, svg, all good here. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-11-05 21:44Z

Delisted MER-C 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply