Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful Blonde at the beach.jpg

File:Topless blonde sunbathing at the beach.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2009 at 22:00:04

•  Info created by Carlos Allevato - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Econt (talk) -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Nice buttocks --Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Econt (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice buttocks indeed. --Calibas (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the resolution is below 2 megapixels. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size, bad crop. EDIT: + she's ugly. —kallerna™ 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

size of what? ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose well..ahm..yeah nice buttocks, but I think this can't be enough. It has a taste of voyeuristic snapshot (220mm shot), I'd be interested under which circumstances this pic was made. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Looking very well. --Karel (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Can't be promoted: under sized (image), no mitigation. Lycaon (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it can be promoted if enough people support, that's the rule. The size is only a guideline. --Calibas (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose File is grossly undersized. Of all the thousands of beaches out there, filled with hundreds of similarly nicely-buttocked women, I'm sure we can do better than this. I support having such a nice ass as an FP, but not at the expense of technical concerns and not with such a messy composition. Maedin\^talk 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Too large (the buttocks) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, I agree that there is no reason to ignore the size guideline in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice shot of a female Homo sapiens sapiens, but I cannot support a picture of a living being without at least the family (Hominidae) in the name or description. Interesting discussion going on here. --Ernie (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  this is easy --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral – Okay, since we have a positive ID on the species now I change my vote to neutral. The picture still has insufficient image size. --Ernie (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice image. --Dezidor (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice picture (even though the composition is a little bit disorderly) of a very nice looking young person. But unfortunately that's not a sufficient reason for FP promotion IMO. And the image size is effectively far to small, so no QI as well. -- MJJR (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  We need a bigger buttocks? --Econt (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – no compelling reason to ignore the guidelines. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Would even be better if you had asked if you could remove the sand... --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral - Very good quality, but unfortunately does not match the required size. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Size dosent matter! Amada44 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Size dosent matter! Category:Female buttocks in photography PMG (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is the right size. --Pablo000 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose very common picture, can be taken again. Photo (not buttocks ;) ) size below guidelines, and I don't see why we should overlook those guidelines this time. --Leafnode 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Leafnode. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, verging on a veto. Medicore quality compared to what a good photograph should look like (the only focused part is the non-descript not-quite blonde woman), composition (or lack thereof), and the rest per Leafnode. Wpedzich (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 13 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)