Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Clapham Common Tube Station

Clapham Common Tube Station

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2010 at 03:07:26 (UTC)

Reason: ~~Poor consensus in nomination~~, blurred people in the platform
Articles this image appears in: Clapham Common tube station
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Clapham Common Tube Station Platforms - Oct 2007.jpg
Nominator: Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs)

Delist — Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist VP ~~yes~~maybe, FP no! Nergaal (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This woudn't pass at VP too --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. Spencer^T♦C 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how (rough count) 7-2 is a poor consensus. Also, this nomination is currently not valid (original nominator has not been notified). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the image quality is pretty consistent with photography in dim, confined locations. Also, the only people blurred are in the absolute foreground, not on the platform (and this doesn't really detract from any understanding or appreciation of the subject IMO since they don't obscure anything important). Which kinda leaves no actual valid reason remaining for the delist. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nominator has failed to note that the image also appears in City and South London Railway and Island platform which adds EV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the kind of subject which is difficult to illustrate in a very compelling way- I'm not going to use the argument occasionally seen that there could not be a FP of the subject, but it would need a kind of "umph" that this one just doesn't seem to. I personally find the forground blurry people rather distracting. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is by no means a bad picture. I just don't think I would support it if it was nominated today. J Milburn (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I consider the motion-blurred people in the foreground to be suggesting the movement of people coming and going from the platform. It's not necessary to illustrate the subject but I don't personally feel they detract. But you're welcome to see things your way. :-) Oh, but I agree with you that it's a difficult subject to illustrate in a compelling way. Sometimes I don't mind giving images leeway on that, and sometimes I just have to accept that nothing short of an amazing photo will do the subject justice. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I supported this in its original nomination, and I still do. The strong EV makes up for the blur. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good EV. I don't like the practice of nominating images to be delisted after seeing them on the main page --Muhammad(talk) 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Diliff and my comments in original nom. I like the motion blur. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this picture... The motion almost serves to convey the bustling nature of the environment on the underground... gazhiley.co.uk 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my original vote. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, you never did actually elaborate on what gave it 'no EV' in your original vote. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept —Maedin\^talk 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]