Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg

Reason: This image sole use in an article is in surface tension. Its use there is being challenged since the water doesn't look like water but like rubber. I have been reverting its deletion from that article mainly on the basis that is a FP and that the creator affirms that surface is water and looks like that because is refracting the blue of the glass. I don't think I am right when reverting on the basis that it is an FP alone and it is true that it doesn't look like water. If that issue gets reassessed I will fill with more reasons to revert its deletion from the article. If it gets replaced by a better image even better.
Articles this image appears in: surface tension
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1.jpg
Nominator: franklin

Delist ~~and Replace~~ — franklin 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with what? For a delist and replace you need to identify the proposed replacement. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, also the subject of a discussion on the ST talkpage: Talk:Surface_tension#Paperclip_image. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I was trying to show my encouragement to photographers to produce a replacement. What is FWIW? Never managed to guess the meaning of this acronym. (the people in the talk page are noticed already if that is what you meant) franklin 13:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always read it as "for what it's worth". This page also lists "for whoever is wondering". J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 'for what it's worth'; in other words, it may or may not be relevant to this discussion, depending on who you ask :-). --jjron (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (For Your Information - sorry, another acronym) Franklin, there's nothing to stop someone from removing a FP from an article. It would be frowned upon if it was removed just to make way for another lousy image, but if there are genuine reasons, the fact that it's a FP should not be a factor. So I don't think this delist is necessary if the purpose (as per the surface tension talk page) was simply to remove it from the article. But as you also say, Surface tension is the only article that it illustrates currently so if it were removed and another appropriate home for it could not be found, it would also become ineligible to be a FP and the delist nom would have a much stronger case. As for my opinion, I'd vote to Keep it, unless consensus is that it be removed from the article. I don't think it does such a poor job of illustrating the subject, and while I agree that it looks somewhat like a membrane, that is sort of what surface tension creates, does it not? It sounds like the fault is perhaps the clarity of the caption, rather than the image itself. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info The image has been removed again (not by me) then the nomination makes sense, I guess!? franklin 14:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of. I raised my objections to the removal on the talk page there. No conclusion has really been reached on the subject yet. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended until consensus in Surface tension's article's talk page about its removal from the article. franklin 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image remains in the article with no consensus to remove/replace it. This can be re-nominated for delisting if something changes. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]