Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Female Pubic Hair

Female Pubic Hair

 * Reason:Good quality image showing female pubic hair
 * Articles this image appears in:Pubic hair
 * Creator:Kma922


 * Support as nominator  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What is your standard of "good quality"? It's a half cut-off naked woman laying on a bed. Our actual articles on related subjects are very technical and have top-enc images.. do you honestly think that a naked woman on a bed offers nearly as much as those diagrams, which aren't even featured themselves? D\=&lt; (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is about pubic hair, not about nudity. It focuses on pubic hair.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing in hide box, see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates D\=&lt; (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose subject is no where near in focus. de Bivort 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This, while it is fine on its own article, should not be featured and listed among wikipedia's best imagery. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. As an illustration of pubic hair, far too little space is devoted to the primary subject.  As a photograph of a woman, obvious problems with cut-off face (get a photograph of the model holding a signed release and show the entire face).  Flat lighting, pedestrian composition.  Durova Charge! 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as ineligible - not in any article. It was in the gallery of pubic hair for about 14 hours before being reverted.  I think it should be seen to settle into an article and receive concensus as being beneficial to that article for a while before being even considered for nomination as an FP. TSP (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 03:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the picture?