Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Assange.jpg

File:Assange.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2010 at 23:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Assange.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Assange.jpg

•  Info created by Robbespierre - uploaded by Robbespierre - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Great portrait of Julian Assange like a en:Barack Obama "Hope" poster.  Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not neutral.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Us Jebulon. Sorry, not neutral--Miguel Bugallo 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Really not the right time and place for this nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not sure where is it in the guidelines that an image has to be (politically?) "neutral", but anyway is below 2Mpix. --Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not in the guidelines, but Isn't neutrality a "Commons" policy ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Neutrality isn´t a Commons policy either, see here. But isn´t the fact that the image is below 2Mpix reason enough? --Snaevar (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Whether or not neutrality were to be taken into account, I wouldn't support this image either way. It's nothing astounding to me in terms of artwork, and it should at least be in svg form. And then there's always the small size of it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Assange is notable. This specific art work probably is not notable in itself, of no artistic merit, of no historic merit and not specially illustrative.--Garrondo (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The arguments against stink. Here you can read my point of view.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question -- Still, you don't give any objective reason for your support other than the stinking smell of the opposes. In what way is this picture special enough to justify a promotion to FP, other than the oportunity (we could say opportunism) of the nomination? In case of promotion, will it be delisted next month, when the issue has already cooled down? Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Template:Answer A need to balance is one reason. Asking for objective reasons is in itself a folly, this picture is certainly as interesting as all the bugs and kitties that do make it. Your assumption that a picture like this would be delisted demonstrates your objectiveness again. Given the pace of the publications of WikiLeaks material, I am sure that next year we will still be hearing from them. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    •  Question Must we feature this picture only because Julian Assange piss off the United States ? That stinks, in my opinion --Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Template:Answer This picture is an example of a category of pictures where we are extremely weak. This has everything to do with the prevailing notion that featured pictures is about photos and about pretty. Mr Assange represents a controversial organisation, an organisation that is not about pissing off the USA. GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- way more political than any featured picture I've seen kip (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Question Where does it say that a picture cannot be political and how does it relate to what Commons is about ?? GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - ignoring the subject matter and evaluating it as an image, I do not see this as FP material. Jonathunder (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I do agree with GerardM that "bugs and kitties" are way too common on FP but this picture is not the answer. Elfalem (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question what would be the answer, voting against critters to make a point ??? The only reasonable response is allowing pictures of other categories like this one. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, i converted image to svg and to hires png. Not too hard, so i guess that discussions about the technical aspects are solved(?). About the content. Image is nice example of political propaganda poster about the current topic. Especially i like the text "Honor" in the bottom, because it is so provocative. Nice touch i would say. In more generally i think we should encourage people to create more images about the current topics not less. --Zache (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose, because this motive is a complete fabrication for Wikimedia Commons. If this motive was part of "operation paperstorm" or something similar, it could perhaps be used as a document for current events. But as far as I've seen "anonymous" has it's own interpretation of the iconic Obama portrait, that is not identical to this one. --81.173.132.80 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The picture does not meet the minium 2 million pixels needed for an FP. --Snaevar (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Should be properly spelled "Honour". Assange is Australian. Rama (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Out of scope, as long as it isn't used elsewhere. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I think most of the artwork we see here about politicians, recent and past, isn't neutral; either puts them in a charming light of bad one. I kind of respect Julian Assange, but in this case I don't think I really see something particularly feature-able. A good photograph would've probably been nicer. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)