Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Dust storm in Texas

Dust storm in Texas

Dust storm approaching Spearman, Texas April 14, 1935.

Reason: Nearly all of the very earliest FP promotions have been delisted; this one slipped through somehow. At 700 × 459 pixels, file size: 68 KB it'd probably be a speedy close by today's standards. And while it's a good illustration of the dust storm, the phone/electrical lines are a serious esthetic detriment. It passed in the very first month of FPC before subpages, so linking directly to the discussion archive.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/March-2004#Dust_Storm
Nominator: Durova^Charge!

Delist — Durova^Charge! 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist And impressive thing to photograph but this is no where near FP standards. Chillum 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. I was going to suggest it may be a likely candidate for VPC assuming it gets delisted here, but looking at its article usage unfortunately I can't really say I'd support it there either. --jjron (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've stated in every other delisting nom for older FPS I don't feel that it is appropiate to delist a nom just because it does not meet the stupidly high standards of many people now even if it did meet or exceed those of the past. The rules on what constitutes a FP. Cat-five - talk 05:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically your argument is that delisting shouldn't be possible? --jjron (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps not quite impossible. A couple of the early promotions such as File:Western-Grey-Kangaroo-with-joey.jpg were deleted as copyvio. But featuring standards for many processes rise with time. Many of the featured articles that were promoted in 2004 or 2005 have been upgraded or delisted. Featured topics keeps raising the bar also. Durova^Charge! 07:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not impossible but I think that there should be a better reason than "times have changed" for delisting an image. Cat-five - talk 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...the phone/electrical lines are a serious esthetic detriment doesn't count? Durova^Charge! 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that we shouldn't delist just because it no longer meets size guidelines or whatever the latest fad is. But I do think you have to evaluate the delist, not just spontaneously oppose it. As Durova says the composition is far from good, and as I said in my support of this delist, given the image's usage on Wikipedia I wouldn't even support it at VPC where the standards are not so "stupidly high". --jjron (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: This doesn't meet current criteria in several areas, and there are probably better images of dust storms out there which can replace it. Maedin\^talk 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Definitely has some severe issues. Spencer^T♦^C 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted MER-C 11:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]