Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Zion Narrows.jpg

File:Zion Narrows.jpg

 * Reason:Wikipedia's very first POTD, to get a sense of how old this is. Still technically barely meets size requirements with a 1000x dimension, but far far far too fuzzy and artefact'y to meet current standards, IMO.
 * Articles this image appears in:The Narrows (Zion National Park)
 * Previous nomination/s: Here is the original FPC.
 * Nominator: Staxringold talkcontribs


 * Delist &mdash; Staxringold talkcontribs 02:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you find an artifact among all those little leaves? Maybe there are but I am having a hard time finding them. Fuzzy is way more apparent.  franklin   03:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the "barely meets size requirements" simply cannot be a reason for delist, as it does meet the size requirements. It is a very nice image, promoted with broad consensus (10:0). Elekhh (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I'm not using barely meets size requirements as a reason to deslist. But being clearly fuzzy and artefact'y (more along the rocks, to answer your question franklin) is. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is not that I want to contradict you, (since an artifact can be small and hard to find and you could have seen it in a place that I didnt notice) but, where exactly is it? We are supposed to look at the image at 100% right?, no more than that. If I zoom more than that yes I start seeing some pixelation but I guess that's normal. Can you give the color code and the area where the artifact or artifacts are?  franklin   00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All over the white coloration on the rocks to the right. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. Composition and lighting aren't great, technical quality is lacking. Wouldn't pass FPC today. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think we should try to re-assess all FPs every day, so "wouldn't pass today" doesn't really mesh, especially when we have many great FPs that only made it second time 'round, and the "barely meets size" gets my usual commentary. Re-arranging your lighting in a gorge can be a difficult task. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist Very far from current FP standards. Relatively small, and not so special we need to keep it as a FP despite its shortcomings. Flickr has 3,000 free photos of Zion National Park. I'm sure a number of those are superior to this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC) (belated signature)
 * Actually just 2,100 if you apply all the filters, but note that this image does not illustrate the national park article, but specifically "The Narrows". So if you'll narrow down your search you'll find 278 results . If you think any of these is better than nominate it as FP, but otherwise please reconsider your vote. Also pls don't forget to sign your comments. Elekhh (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What photos exist on Flickr don't define what an FP is. This simply doesn't meet the current technical standards, and it doesn't depict some rock formation that has exploded since it was taken so it's historical value is effectively naught. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just using the number of photos on flickr as an illustration of how easy and common it is to take photos of this national park. This really is not among the best in Wikipedia, especially when an army of people are hiking in this location and can potentially take photos. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. My point was in response to Elekhh's point that many of those photos aren't this good. But again, best photo on Flickr of a subject != FP. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the best photo on Flickr defines FP, I only responded to the statement "I'm sure a number of those are superior to this". I think Calliopejen1 should check the validity of this affirmation and withraw it if unvalid. PS. Got your point about relatively "easy access" to the site. Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my point. I looked through the flickr photos of the narrows and found several of at least comparable if not better quality, though none of FP quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unconvincing reasons for keeping this, but too few votes to delist. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)