Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Paintings of the Karma Sutra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Group sex

Original - One of a series of paintings of the Karma Sutra at Kuchaman Fort.
Original - One of a series of paintings of the Karma Sutra at Kuchaman Fort.
Reason
A good image showing group sex.
Articles this image appears in
Group sex
Creator
Flickr
  • Support as nominator Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Image quality problems: dark, uneven exposure, tilted. --Janke | Talk 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tilted, figures cut off. Surely there's old pornography better than this. 68.7.184.116 (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose not encyclopedic. Muhammad(talk) 11:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
All the people opposed this image because this image has technical problems like dark, uneven exposure, tilted etc. But could you please explain how an image of Kama sutra is "not encyclopedic"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. Sexual intercourse and its portrayal in art are perfectly good encyclopaedia topics. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An image may be encyclopedic, however this one isn't. An encylopedic image should be one from which one can learn something. This image does not do that. Muhammad(talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, not everybody is as good at group sex as you...--Svetovid (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This image is about sexual intercourse and Kama sutra. So you are saying Kama sutra and sexual intercourse has nothing to learn? Kama sutra and sexual intercourse are not encyclopedic topic? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if this image would be in Kama Sutra, then it would be enc. As now, in group sex, I certainly agree it's not - because the group is cut off... --Janke | Talk 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Would support if significantly better quality and not cut off. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while there is no reason to delete this image, the lack of copyright information makes me wary about featuring it. It's obviously not his own work and it might very well be PD through age but... also, it's not a very good reproduction. gren グレン 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per quality problems identified above. A pity-- this would look great on the main page. Spikebrennan (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Janke. Cacophony (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close not going to get promoted. Dengero (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The photography is not satisfactory. нмŵוτнτ 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)