Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/mad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image:Mad scientist.svg

Caucasian, male, aging, crooked teeth, messy hair, lab coat, spectacles/goggles, dramatic posing — one popular stereotype of mad scientist.
Caucasian, male, aging, crooked teeth, messy hair, lab coat, spectacles/goggles, dramatic posing — one popular stereotype of mad scientist.
Reason
SVG clip art is not FP material. It's helpful to demonstrate visually what a mad scientist looks like but it's just a cartoon caricature- there's no real juicy content that makes a FP.
Nominator
ffroth
  • Delist. This has been attemped before, we'll see how it goes. — ffroth 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist for lack of encyclopedic content. A free image of Dr Frankenstein would be much better, for example. de Bivort 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist. Thanks for putting this up again, only I think you were too soft in the delist nom. This is probably my most detested FP - get rid of it! --jjron 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist This is not Wikipedia's best work. There is nothing "impressive" or "highly informative" about it (as per WP:WIAFP). Like froth said, it's just a caricature, which makes its enc value a bit questionable. CillaИ ♦ XC 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. NyyDave 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DelistI agree with the above comments about the lack of encyclopedic comment, this thing s a caricature derivate from a stereotype, a photo of the creator of that same stereotype would be far better. PS: Shouldn't we consider Image:Villianc.svg aswell? --Mad Tinman 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delist as above Matt Deres 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per all above --Bridgecross 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist Per above. 8thstar 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Somebody want to take on that horse animation again? Spikebrennan 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 17:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To be brutally honest, the image sucks and it's embarrasing to have it listed among FPs. --ffroth 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's unnecessarily blunt, ffroth - you can make your point get across without comments that can potentially hurt the person who made the image (saying that it "sucks" and thats it's "embarassing" to have it listed is quite offensive). So try to keep more civil, no need to go down that road. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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