View of Paris

Reason

Too small, distracting object in foreground, no detail in the view of the city itself.

Nominator

Pstuart84 Talk

• Delist — Pstuart84 Talk 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've always loved this one. In response to the "distracting object in foreground" comment, note that the image currently illustrates Gargoyle and Cathedral architecture of Western Europe, but not Paris. The gargoyle is the _subject_, not a distracting foreground object. Pity about the small image size. Spikebrennan 03:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying that; I was working off the caption mainly. I still think it's too small though. Pstuart84 Talk 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist its tiny --'''[[User:Hadseys|<span style="color:#a0a;font-family:comic sans ms">H<font color="#880088">A<font color="#660066">D<font color="#440044">S</font>E</font>Y</font>S</span>''']] 12:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delist, regrettably. It's much too small for a reproduceable shot. --Malachirality 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though it's small it's a good shot and I refuse to give into the notion that we have to be anal-retentive about retroactively purging all the old fpc's since very few fall under today's more strict guidelines. Cat-five - talk 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Cat5. There's a limit to how small an FP can be of course, but for me this image falls into a grey area since all the important details are there at current resolution. SingCal 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. It's tiny, and a quick look at flickr shows taht this angle is a common one for a shot--easily reproducible. There is also artifacting around the edge of the gargoyle, and the picture isn't as sharp as it could be. Calliopejen1 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. Matt Deres 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, with today's 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and higher resolutions, this image covers only a few percent of the monitor, making it pretty useless. It's also very reproducable. --Aqwis 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, per Aqwis. This just isn't wiki's best anymore. Cheers. --Mad Tinman _{T C} 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Calliopejen1 and others: if a shot is really outstanding in other areas, size issues might be mitigated. I'd add poor lighting to the growing list of reasons why this one isn't an example of our very best work. --mikaul^talk 01:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cat-five -- it's unfortunate to delist things just because of ever-changing size standards. If this image is easily reproducible as several people have mentioned, let someone go up the cathedral and re-take the photo with a fancy high-res digital SLR and nominate that one as a replacement. (I myself have taken this very photo too but my camera was a cheap one.) Spebudmak 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist It doesn't need to be a high resolution SLR and the price of the camera is definitely not an issue. The lighting is not great, the composition is sloppy. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist too small. ^8thstar 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until suitable replacement is found I'd go up there and take the picture myself, but I currently can't shell out the money for a trip to Paris. --Sharkface217 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted MER-C 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]