Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Shuffle delist

Shuffle


Not FA standard because the photo:
 * Has low depth of field
 * Much of the photo is generally out of focus
 * Too dark
 * Black and white
 * Generally not very clear, unless you were told what is happening in the photo it may take you a few seconds to see
 * Basically per all the reasons in the discussion, I still don't believe it is FA standard.


 * Delist as nominator.-- Andeh 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite being B&W, it is an excellent depiction of it's subject. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment just so everyone knows, this image was promoted only 10 days ago. If I counted correctly, there were only 10 voted, 6.5 for, 3 against. As the closing admin noted, it was a fairly close call. Things to keep in mind.--Andrew c 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nom, it was just promoted. PPGMD 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as closer of the nomination.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per consensus of original nomination. Too soon to nominate for de-listing. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just an attempt to change a result which went against your opinion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is in focus, and this was JUST promoted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Come on! --Dschwen 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I really didn't think this should have been promoted the first time around (since the shuffle itself is in soft focus with the main focus on the near hand), but yeah, this is a bit quick to jump on it for delisting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist, might as well get rid of it if we can though. I think the "speedy keep"s are out of line; this image needs to stand or fall on its merits, not how long it's been since the vote. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - It seems everyone is a little embarassed because the picture was promoted. Well, I wasn't here then and think a much better picture of the same subject may well come up one of these days. - Alvesgaspar 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Black and white should not be a factor in the descion to delist an image. So of the greatest pictures of all time were black and white. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. I had assumed this would fail when I originally saw it, and never voted. I would definitely have opposed then, and I think it should be delisted now.  The fact that only ten days have passed is irrelevant.  There is no time limit, and there shouldn't be. -- Moondigger 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I think time should be a factor. If you nominated something enough times for delisting, it might eventually get enough votes in the same way as an infinite number of monkeys producing the entire works of Shakespeare. ;-) If it passed in the first place, then we have to respect that consensus, even if we don't really agree with it. In any case, it looks like consensus will again confirm it is a keeper for now. Perhaps when the dust is settled down the track, it may be a better candidate for delisting. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * trouble is, when you vote keep solely based on the last vote, you're just entrenching a weak past consensus. Very few of the votes here actually attempt to rebut the delisting reasons, which is something I find bad.  You're giving the image credit for something that has nothing to do with its actual merit.  Benefit of the doubt makes sense on AfD or IfD, where the content's gone if we get rid of it and could always improve, but here it's just a matter of reconsidering whether we think it's "wikipedia's best work."  If it's delisted, there's no loss to anyone as there would be with a deletion, so delisting should not be regarded as inherently bad.  Does it have the merits or not?  That's all that should matter. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - not perfect technically, perhaps, but it illustrates its subject well - we are an encyclopedia, after all. There's much worse out there with the small bronze star above it. -- Countdown Crispy  (  ? 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; It's black and white! Run for the hills! ♠ SG →Talk 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't black and white, it's that the main focus is on the near hand, and not the cards, which really throws off attention from the action which the picture is about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also the Pepsi can and white thing (handkerchief?) right behind the main subject, plus the lighting. Like I said, I thought this was an obvious failure in the making, and didn't figure I had to vote on it. (Kicks self...) Had I voted, it wouldn't have been promoted in the first place. -- Moondigger 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The original delist nominator put "black and white" as one of their reasons for listing it here. ♠ SG →Talk 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The focus on the hand emphesises the action of shuffling rather than the shuffling itself. Although this may not be the best picture to illustrate how to shuffle, it is a good picture to illustrate a person shuffling. Change your focus and the meaning of the picture becomes clear ;-) — E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as original nominator. I have to say I am amused there are more people voting in the delisting compared to the number of people who voted in the original candidacy listing. In regards to delisters stating "a much better picture of the same subject may well come up one of these days" (emphasis mine) should note that there has been precendent of several images of the same subject being FA at the same time as well as of those some have indeed been delisted but only after they were superceded. A better image may indeed be available in the future, but there is not one now and the current image should not be delisted based on speculation. –– Lid(Talk) 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet none of them are bothering to address the concerns of those who feel this shouldn't be featured. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The concerns were raised in the initial candidacy and if the answers aren't sufficent to change your vote that isn't grounds for delisting. Of the four people who have voted delist two were opposers in the original candidacy putting forth the same arguments that were rejected by the people who supported the candidacy, one is delisting based on speculation of a currently non-existant images quality and the third is debating the time limit on listing images for delisting. Ignoring the future image reasoning the other three, including yourself as stated in the "might as well get rid of it if we can though", seem to be using the delisting process simply because the result was not what you wished it was. –– Lid(Talk) 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the position you seem to be taking towards the delisting process. If one thinks an image isn't up to standards, why not delist?  What other process are people who think an image isn't up to standards supposed to use?  Obviously opening a ton of votes in succession is disruptive and pointless, but you seem to be denying the basic validity of delisting. WP:CCC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The position I am taking is one of observation and, at least to my own vision, comparison to the comparitive featured article review. To my knowledge a featured article would not be reviewed for nearly its entire time on wikipedia, and the ones that are are not ten days after promotion. The debate of time frame is one of merit as if there is no time frame then the concept of "bad faith nomination" due to time is void, though it is a valid complaint and has been used for years on wikipedia to prevent people constantly listing items for deletion, deletion reviews, promotion, promotion reviews or other such acts and counteracts. I am not here to deny the validity of delisting, but to put forth an observation and rebuttal to the "delist" points which include the original nomination in question. –– Lid(Talk) 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you check out WP:FAR, it has nearly as many entires as WP:FAC. If you check out signpost, we're defeaturing articles as fast as they're being added -- last week had four up and four down.  Everything is subject to review here. I was going to eventually nominate this one for delisting, because I felt it hadn't had broad enough attention the first time around, but this nom came so quickly that everyone jumped on him for "bad faith."  It's not bad faith if you genuinely feel that the image doesn't deserve to be featured.  We've got like five votes here with no reason but ad hominem on the nom.  You're right that jumping on things immediately like this is bad for wikipedia, so I intended to wait.  However, you shouldn't assume that this nom is a bad thing inherently, I think it is bad mainly because of people's reactions to it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comparing this to WP:FAR is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Articles change constantly; pictures don't. If consensus says the picture met the standards at the time of its promotion and the standard haven't changed since then and the picture hasn't changed since then, what grounds are there for delisting? I tried to start a discussion about this point on the talk page but apparently nobody was interested.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One should not nominate images for delisting that they don't think it meets standards, they should nomintate pictures that they don't think would meet group consensus as being an FP. Since it just passed FP, it is safe to assume the consensus does think this image is FP. 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

--Nautica Shad e  s  20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only to I believe this is too early, but:
 * The low depth of field does does not harm the detial of the actual shuffling.
 * The rest of the photo is distracting, and can, if not should, be out of focus.
 * The subject in question is well lighted, not too dark.
 * The black and white, although slightly detrimental to the encyclopedic value, is rather harmless.
 * It is quite clear if one reads the article it is in.
 * Keep low depth of field is not a problem. It's the main quality of this picture full depth of field would make it confused ! Ericd 09:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all other keep votes, their reasons, and any reason that may come after this post. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above and original nomination. - jlao   0  4  03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kept as a featured picture. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)