Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
<
delist
- Reason
- See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 35#Featured picture. Unfortunately, this photo has no home in any articles and the Obama article editors can't seem to find a good place for it. As such, it no longer meets criteria #5 (adds value to an article).
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
- Nominator
- chat}
- Delist — ]
- Comment It has been in Political positions of Barack Obama for some time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, how did I miss that? I don't know that it adds much to that article, though. ]
- Keep. Doesn't violate any of the criteria, has EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Since it is in a article and is still a technically good picture and has encyclopedic value. Thisglad (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly is the encyclopedic value? How does it help me understand ]
- Keeep as above Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above, although I like the one with the nose hair better.--ragesoss (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delist I agree with howcheng, it doesn't add anything. He is one of the most photographed guys around. There should be a picture that puts him in a surrounding that says something about who he is. bobshoe
- Keep--it was the intensity of the image that attracted FPC voters to it in the first place. I think that still distinguishes it from the myriad other Obama photos around, and does add something to Political positions. Obviously EV has to be measured somewhat differently with such a ubiquitous subject; no photograph is going to pack the same encyclopedic punch as one that's Chick Bowen 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)]
- Funny, because the editors who frequent ]
- It's not surprising at all to me that you'd get a very different response from editors of the Obama article than you would from FPC voters. Chick Bowen 03:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)]
- I don't see why our valuation of the image should supersede that of the editors who actually edit the articles. If they can't find a reason to use it, doesn't that imply then that it doesn't really add to the article? ]
- It's not surprising at all to me that you'd get a very different response from editors of the Obama article than you would from FPC voters.
- Funny, because the editors who frequent ]
- Keep Still technically sound. While the "intensity" is harder to quantify, unless a technically comparable image with a different expression is put forward, I see no reason to begrudge it the subject's expression. That, and I added it to the underdeveloped and formerly picture-less Public image of Barack Obama article.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- And it was promptly replaced a day later. ]
- Keep Regardless of whether this image is orphaned or not, it still has potential EV, and its technical quality remains undiminished. I say keep. Jordan Contribs 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Potential" EV is not a criterion. It needs to add value to the article(s) it's currently in. ]
- Comment: I'm wondering if perhaps this is a situation where political biases are causing some people to argue keeping this photo's Featured status... for the record, I'm a registered Democrat and will be voting for Obama, but I clearly do not see how this photo adds any real value to the article. ]
- I would argue that it helps illustrate the main subject of the article, and thus has encyclopedic value, even if the specific event or date of the picture is not mentioned in the article it is related to the 'Energy policy' section Thisglad (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept MER-C 10:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep well-captured picture and possibly useful for some articles as time goes by.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
