Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg

Rolling thunder cloud edit

A thunderstorm

Reason: Very low resolution, fails number 2 Criteria
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/August-2004#Rolling_thunder_cloud
Nominator: MakE ^shout!

Delist — MakE ^shout! 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous delist nominations: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Rolling thunder cloud, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Thunder cloud. MER-C 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet AGAIN as per my reasons on all the other delist noms - nothing's changed since May. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. Criteria 2 says: Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired. - I certainly would call this "unique". --Janke | Talk 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please provide some sources that show that the type of cloud depicted in this picture are rare or even uncommon Thisglad (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather awkward to prove a negative - the burden is on someone to show that we can get better. The previous nom included a discussion on this issue (as you know since you contributed to it), with no one able to proffer better, or to be honest anything close to the impact of this, regardless of licensing concerns. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The low resolution criteria is not enough reason to remove this picture, if not unique it depicts a non very common image with no know substitute so far.--Jf268 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist, this simply doesn't meet my FP expectations at all. It's not just low resolution, it fills less than a quarter of my monitor and that doesn't help with being heavily artifacted and not sharp enough. People, we have technical requirements here, and this photograph is nowhere near fulfilling them! It has twice been on the Main Page, one can say that it has done its job already. It may have a bit of a "wow factor", but it's not really unique and it doesn't represent our best work at all. Todor →Bozhinov 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wouldn't pass today, but aside from size it stands up well to current standards. We should respect the judgments of past years' FPC contributors, to a reasonable extent.--ragesoss (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]