Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Sunspot TRACE.jpeg

Sunspot_TRACE.jpeg

Reason: There are 2 reasons for delisting this image. Firstly, this image does not meet the current size requirements for FPC and secondly the technical quality of this image is poor.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunspot TRACE
Nominator: Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review}

Delist — Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how you determined that the technical quality is low - the file size seems appropriate for the image dimensions. Do we have a higher resolution reference image for what this should look like? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] prehaps a viable alternative could be found from here. All taken by the same probe and in many cases of much better quality. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Doesn't meet the size requirements. Elephantissimo (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impossible to retake. It's not every day you have a satellite fly past the sun and take pictures of sunspots. The uniqueness of this image is great enough for us to ignore the normal guidelines. After all, that's all they are: guidelines; not rules. Clegs (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No replacement available. Muhammad(talk) 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until a replacement can be found. Per WP:IAR --Janke | Talk 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A stunner and a unique image, irreplacable. --Blechnic (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clegs. Dhatfield (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until higher res is sourced Capital photographer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This image does not meet the size requirements. It is totally reproducible, TRACE is an orbital telescope, not a spacecraft that flew by the sun. Also, this isn't a particularly impressive solar image compared to what's out there. Sure, this exact prominence was a long time ago and can't be retaken, but there are much more impressive prominences all the time. You could probably make a higher quality image with a consumer H-Alpha solar scope and a DSLR. But if you absolutely must have a TRACE image, I'm not sure of TRACE's tec specs, but I have a feeling a higher res version is available on their website. Or if not, they have newer images that are higher res. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Then replace it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In contrast to TOS, I actually went and checked the website and couldn't find a better/higher res image. I suspect others may have done the same, or we would have an alternative uploaded by now. Maybe you would like to retract your bold assertion in the absence of any supporting evidence? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with Blech and PapaLima. The first thing I did was go to the website, and I was extremely unimpressed by the quality/subjects of the shots. And while, yes, this is an orbital telescope, it's still not every day the people running it decided to take pictures of solar anomalies, upload them to an easy-to-find place on the internet, and release them into the public domain. Clegs (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps if this were a "delist and replace" request, I would support delisting, but the uniqueness of the image makes me keep. Spencer^T♦^C 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 10:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]