Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Nothing but a horse (of course)

Horse animation

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2012 at 11:58:47 (UTC)

An animated horse created by a Wikipedia editor based on photographs by Eadweard Muybridge

Reason: As noted in a previous candidacy, user generated art is generally not considered to have high enough EV now; as such, this old nomination should probably be delisted.
Articles this image appears in: Animation, 12 basic principles of animation, and several more.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animhorse.gif, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/animhorse
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (talk)

Delist — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the the 2007 delist discussion. --jjron (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Hasn't it already been here several times before? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so what? There's no ban on renominating images for delisting. If you believe the image still meets the criteria, that's fine, but please offer your reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think his point is that no new argument has been made for delisting. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It hasn't been here for four years which is a long time in FPC - things change. Besides which Crisco's reason actually is a new argument. I didn't support it based on that argument, personally I simply still agree with my own reasoning from four years ago, but others may agree with his new point. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right; consensus can change. I was just trying to clarify what I thought TA's point was. I'll meet you halfway with the rest: it's a new argument, but it's not a convincing one. I don't recall any consensus that user-generated art doesn't have enough EV. File:Glass ochem dof2.png, File:Lone House.jpg, File:Glasses 800 edit.png, and File:Terragen render.jpg are all user-generated art. Creating art through software doesn't seem much different from animation. The EV comes from what the image shows, not who made it. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        For animation, with a goodly number of professionally drawn cartoons in the public domain, I'd think it is fair to ask for high quality. We don't go adding user created art to postmodernism willy-nilly and then make it featured, do we? Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Makeem, I'm not sure if we're meeting halfway, I think we agree; I agree with you re the user generated art thing, and I also don't know of anywhere where a consensus was reached saying it was unfeaturable. I was merely pointing out that it was a new argument re this image, and some others may agree with it (and as I said above, it's not what I've based my delist vote on). --jjron (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We were meeting halfway before I re-wrote my comment and left that part. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; this sort of cartoon is really not representative of the best work of a 2010s encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Best work? Maybe not, but isn't it pretty good as an illustration of animation and rotoscoping? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, maybe not. I think not, but, regardless, an image needs to be "among Wikipedia's best work" to meet the featured picture criteria. This fails. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly not overall best work, but a 2-minute search convinced me it's still one of our better images illustrating animation. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per J Milburn. Spencer^T♦C 22:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist reluctantly. As with the pirate below, I feel this image still has decent EV, but it too no longer reaches the level of FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Its value seems very narrow to me, since most such cartoonish animations would not be made backwards from a series of photographs like this. It really only illustrates the very specific, almost unique technique that was used to create it. Chick Bowen 04:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree that an example of professional illustration would be superior (even if not artistically, example wise).TCO (Reviews needed) 03:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it makes a good illustration for a couple of those articles, and don't see an issue with the cartoon style. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted --Extra 999 (Contact ^me) 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]