Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Michele Merkin

Delist: Michele Merkin
Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2022  at 18:37:43 (UTC)
 * Reason:Legs appear heavily photoshopped (where are her knees?), butt proportions seem way off, spine should likely have cracked.... Honestly, I think this was a reasonable FP for when it happened, and it should have been on the main page years ago. But it's far, far too late for it now.
 * Articles this image appears in:Michele Merkin, Handbra
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/Michele Merkin 1.jpg Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg
 * Nominator: Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs


 * Delist &mdash; Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 18:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist – EV, i.e. I don't see much in her article that relates to nudity in her career. Bammesk (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist Not a horrible photo, but not featured quality. Looking at it, i fail to see any educational value. The helper5667 (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think best case scenario, it's a photo of her, in her job as a model. However, it's also not even the lead image in her article. I have the vague idea it used to be in glamour photography, which I think would do a lot to justify it, but it's not there now. And then there's the... simply terrible usage from the original nomination. . I somewhat feel bad nominating it, because I feel as POTD co-ordinator I should be a little more dispassionate, but it's also clear people are willing to spend three pages complaining about how bad of an image it is without taking any concrete action, so perhaps I can justify the nomination on the grounds of "I'm speaking up for people who will not listen to advice on proper forum to deal with the objections they're making". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not familiar with the featured picture process so I have no vote, but I would like to point out that this picture is being discussed at Talk:Main Page. Delisting this image does not resolve questions of what is or is not appropriate for POTD. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the objection is, as it was there, that the image isn't good enough for featured picture status, this 100% resolves the question. If there's anything else worth objecting to in the queue, I'm 100% sure I'll hear about it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That comment from a single user did not refer to the image's status as a featured picture. It referred to suitability as an image to be POTD. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This, not POTD, is the most appropriate venue to deal with quality issues. Other issues are irrelevant if quality isn't there, because quality alone can block it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist – Exploitive, gimmicky, lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist – --Janke | Talk 15:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist - poor quality image, a poor example of the genre, an inaccurate likeness of the person, little if any educational value. Levivich 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom, and per Levivich: this just isn't a good photo, and the EV is very low. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 19:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)