Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cenk Uygur hosting The Young Turks

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2016 at 02:55:34 (UTC)

Original – Cenk Uygur hosting the The Young Turks in 2015

Reason: A photograph of high resolution that has a free license and adequately provides the same information as a non-free screenshot of a copyrighted web/television program.
Articles in which this image appears: The Young Turks (should also appear in the article Cenk Uygur but it's currently protected from editing)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Entertainment
Creator: Tim Collins through the new tytvault Flickr account with CC-BY-SA licensing. I requested copyright permission. Also there is a standalone tytvault website with non-free images.

Support as nominator – New9374 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Promotional shot, akin to advertising. Sca (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Sca (talk) – Jobas (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion does this fall under? New9374 (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3a states it "is among the best examples of a given subject"; how are they not among the best example when they are the only photographs of The Young Turks that the encyclopedia has to offer? 3b states it "illustrates the subject in a compelling way [and] has appropriate lighting"; Cenk and Ana are using hand gestures to evoke attention in a powerfully irresistible way and the photographs have appropriate lighting. 3c states it "is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be [...] just highly informative"; the deconstructed American flag background is aesthetically pleasing and the photographs are highly informative of the show, its hosts and its studio. I don't see how it being a "promotional shot, akin to advertising" violates the criterion 3 especially when today's featured picture is taken from the subject's official website. New9374 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Emily Batty pic shouldn't have been promoted, either. Promotional. Sca (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca has a long history of objecting to any promotional shots of living people (particularly politicians). As the unanimous support for the Emily Batty image shows, not everyone agrees with him. Personally I think this image has a lot of character. Sadly, it hasn't gotten much attention. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca and Jobas, all objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image.. Thank you Chris Woodrich, it is unfortunate this picture hasn't gotten much attention and no rationale has been provided for opposes. New9374 (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca has a long history of opposing artificial, staged photos designed to promote or sell a personality, politician, program, product or service, and he will continue to do so based on his training in principles of journalism.
However, in this case: Mediocre detail, distracting background, and lack of any visual clue as to why this person would be featured. Thus, puzzling and not "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer," IMO.
PS: This opinion has nothing to do with Sca's personal political views. Nor does Sca have any opinion of the subject(s) of this (these) photos, having never heard of them before. Sca (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not a bad shot, but opposing based on EV. It is not the lead image for the person in question (so limited EV on that page), nor does it show both hosts for tv show (limited EV for the TV program). Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thank you Mattximus. New9374 (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]