Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NonNudeExample2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NonNudeExample2
I think this picture strongly meets the requirements of WP:FPC. It illustrates the article content particularly well and it is absolutely eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. The image is public domain, created by a Wikipedian, so no problems there.
- Nominate and support. - Cyde Weys 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Nice boobs, but... well... the background is not well chosen and the composition is not that good either. bogdan 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just a snapshot. --Janke | Talk 19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not pornography, just a picture. - JPM | 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 22:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral: I agree with bogdan; additionally, I think the other picture on the page better illistrates the subject matter. The blond girl also appears to have a case of red eye, although it could just be me. TomStar81 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - This isn't porn. It's just a mundane picture of some dumb slags. Certainly not FP worthy.--Deglr6328 06:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
! Strong Oppose This is a snapshot I realize that its fun to submit silly pictures that would never make it as an FPC just because they have some encyclopedic "worth," but there really are some great candidates if you look around something like deviantart enough. Find a good one, ask the contributor if it can be put on the wikipedia. Out of curiosity, do you know these girls? Are you trying to spite them ;)? drumguy8800 - speak? 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wish I knew these girls :-P Cyde Weys 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - not interesting enough or special enough for Featured pic - Adrian Pingstone 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is neither pornography (since it does not cause sexual arousal) nor is it a remarkable picture. Composition and background are bad, colours and sharpness not above average, and the blond girl has in fact a red eye. There is no reason whatsoever to feature this picture. Calderwood 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's pornographic in that I suppose it's purpose is titilation (and there appear to be those who are titilated by it), but it's not an especially interesting or intriguing example. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Calderwood. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose erm no. chowells 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Opppose Doesn't merit Feature Picture status. SteveHopson 05:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose In no way remarkable. --Fipe 09:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Funny party snapshot, but nothing excellent about it. Kessa Ligerro 10:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose If such images are made pic of day, people will think wikipedia is some stupid nonsense site.--vineeth 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Cute models do not a good image make. Agateller 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, lol. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong oppose! Nothing interesting about it. - Eagleamn 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. What is this, Wikipedians Gone Wild?--Fallout boy 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - Featured images are supposed to enhanced the look of the main page, and this one fits into that category. -- infinity0 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Pity support :) --Obli (Talk)? 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Boobs. Coffee 20:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose It's clearly not in any articles. It's seems to be a simple photo that some teen friends took of each other. (Maybe you mistaked Featured Picture Candidates for Images for Deletion.) Lol. Alvinrune TALK 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
