Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2017 at 05:45:47 (UTC)

Reason: In lieu of the referendum last year in the United Kingdom which confirmed the exit of the Britain from the European Union, it was announced that the Prime Minister would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union sometime in 2017. As it happens, yesterday was that day, so I am presenting the copy of the formal invocation of Article 50, giving formal notice to the Council of the European Union of a member state's intention to withdraw from the EU in order to allow withdrawal negotiations to begin as required by the Treaty on European Union. Since this is the first time that such paperwork has ever been formally invoked, I am listing it here for FPC consideration.
Articles in which this image appears: United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, Brexit, European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
Creator: UK Prime Minister Theresa May / 10 Downing Street

Support as nominator – TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible – Sorry, hasn't been on any page long enough, thus doesn't fulfill criteria. --Janke | Talk 07:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Janke: My apologies; I was unaware that the criteria had shifted again. Well that leaves us with two options: prematurely closing this nomination or moving this to the suspended nominations section and waiting it out for 7 days. I leave that choice to you and yours. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The criteria have been like that for ages. We'll make exceptions for new articles, sometimes, but I really can't see any consensus to support such an exception here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support it if re-nominated. Valuable document but not FP. 18:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Agree with previous comment. Significant event but the letter itself is basically a bureaucratic document. Sca (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It's the content itself that is noteworthy, not the actual letter itself. So I don't see any EV here.Mattximus (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have nothing against FPs of documents, including historical letters (Bixby letter, for example). However, this does not meet quality standards by any stretch of the imagination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]