File talk:Michele Merkin 1.jpg

Damn
Interesting GFDL image. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Porniest FP or what? :) Bet WP's traffic triples the day it's on the Main Page!


 * Any picture of extremely good quality, pleasing to most of the general public should be a FP. What we want to put on the Main Page is a question of ethics followed the world over in majority.


 * Above poster is just plain wrong. I see this image was licensed to us barely more than a month ago and it is now featured in almost 10 articles. It's obviously appealing to "prurient interest" and whoever is promoting it should pare back its use on his own. Otherwise I will. It's damaging to our reputation, and rightly so if we allow it to appear on 10+ freakin articles. JDG 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone is trying to promote/market someone using WP. We are being used!! Is there is policy to stop such promotions?


 * Hardly. It's featured on her page, glamour photography, beauty, and physical attractiveness.  All things this photo illustrates rather well to most people, I'd wager. - 24.10.25.141 06:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's absolutely no harm in having this shot used. She was kind enough to provide the professionally shot image under a free license, and it just so happens to be the most representative image available. --  Zanimum 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia projects have, above all else, an educational aim. How does this image educate? I propose to delete it to prevent culture degradation of the public. Your opinions count. Q0k (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed delisting
A proposal was made to delist this image as a featured picture on 3 November 2007. The result of was to retain the photo's featured status. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, it wasn't used as a POTD. Seems like a good decision - it's a beautifully shot picture regardless of the subject, and deserves its featured status, but putting it on the front page would detract from the seriousness of Wikipedia. --Chriswaterguy talk 08:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)