Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Obama Portrait 2006 trimmed.jpg
Obama portrait[edit]
- 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
- howcheng {chat}
- Delist — howcheng {chat} 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It has been in Political positions of Barack Obama for some time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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 Political positions of Barack Obama or the section it's in, "Energy Policy", better? I humbly suggest that the EV should be relatively obvious and either I'm just clueless or it really doesn't have much. howcheng {chat} 06:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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 unique by circumstances. Chick Bowen 19:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, because the editors who frequent Talk:Barack Obama felt that this particular photo lacked any encyclopedic value. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Funny, because the editors who frequent Talk:Barack Obama felt that this particular photo lacked any encyclopedic value. howcheng {chat} 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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. howcheng {chat} 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. howcheng {chat} 06:13, 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)