Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Assange.jpg

File:Assange.jpg

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

Julian Assange

•  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)
•  Oppose -- way more political than any featured picture I've seen kip (talk) 19:33, 17 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)