Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Temple Grandin at Ted

Temple Grandin
Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2010 at 02:02:24 (UTC)
 * Reason:Encyclopedic Value. Temple Grandin was born an autistic person who couldn't "speak before the age of 4," yet went on to be awarded a "Ph.D. in animal science."  In addition to her economic importance—developing a standard for humanly processing cattle—she also is a fire cracker with quips like this from her TED talk.


 * Chris Anderson: You once wrote, [and] I like this quote, "If by some magic, autism had been eradicated from the face of the Earth, then men would still be socializing in front of a wood fire at the entrance to a cave."  [Why did you write that?]


 * Temple Grandin Response: "Because who do you think made the first stone spears? The Asperger guy. And if you were to get rid of all the autism genetics there would be no more Silicon Valley, and the energy crisis would not be solved."


 * Temple Grandin is worth FP because she's of EV.


 * Articles in which this image appears:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin
 * Creator:Steve Jurvetson


 * Support as nominator --Gut Monk (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I agree she deserves an FP, this image has her face badly out of focus. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Badly out of focus. — raeky ( talk 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like raeky said, it is seriously out of focus. Bad crop too (though that is fixable, but there’s no point). Greg L (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A featured picture of Grandin would be a good thing; however, this one is not up to scatch technically by a long shot due to focus issues. Suggest speedy close. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a day or two. I found two much higher quality photos, one by a professional photographer, and I'm trying to negotiate copyrights. Gut Monk (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just run a new nom if you get them. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Info Premature closing overturned. Closers should not be "involved", and two speedy close votes are currently required as a minimum. Hence this minimum could not have been met. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless bureaucracy. What do you hope to achieve by doing this? Would you like someone else to speedy close it instead? How about you do it? J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As well as being dead wrong: "two speedy close votes are currently required as a minimum" - so when did you make up that rule for us? And you're now also trying to tell us that anyone that closes can no longer vote - "Closers should not be "involved"". Add to the fact that the nominator has basically withdrawn this, saying he's found better photos, which will need to run as a new nom anyway. I would overturn your overturn if I had time atm. --jjron (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did. It was made up, was it? ;) Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support reverting the overturn- not only are these guidelines not written anywhere, but they are clearly contrary to what has been happening recently, and, in any case, this would be a fairly clear case when the guidelines should be ignored for the sake of ease. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As clear a case of WP:IAR that can be. — raeky ( talk 17:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so me, jjron and raeky all seem pretty convinced this was a solid close. Are we three enough? Or are we too involved? Not involved enough? Or do we need more? Perhaps the fact the nominator began looking for images to replace this, or has said he's perfectly happy with it being closed? J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think raeky is just pointing out that WP:IAR exists, which I could invoke just as well. :) Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that, if we're ignoring rules, it has to be justified. I'm really not seeing why you've brought this back, apart from the sake of the rules/process. J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So your little meditation about IAR did not reveal to you that we need to avoid any semblance of bias in our actions, which is what we've set up our rules and processes to do? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm not trying to impress anyone and show off how unbiased Wikipedia is, I'm trying to clear out some noms that are clearly going to fail. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still the only one that's specifically said that they want this speedy closed, so the basis for a speedy has not been established according to what Jjron expounded. It's up to voters to open their (virtual) mouths and actually say what they want - if indeed they do! So please use the key phrase, don't expect closers to guess what you really meant! Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator The nominated picture is of high EV, but it is of low technical standard (TS.)  Would an Admin please close this nomination because I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination because I am seeking the copyrights to a higher TS photograph.  (hint, the link to the higher TS picture I'm seeking is found at the following link.)  Gut Monk (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Following link

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)