Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aerogelbrick

Aerogel Brick

A 2.5 kg brick is supported by a piece of aerogel weighing only 2 grams.

Reason: I hate to do this, as it is such an awesome image, but it is sadly too small now. The image has also been delisted on Commons.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aerogelbrick.jpg
Nominator: X clamation point

Delist — X clamation point 05:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Good EV and wow. Size not much of a factor IMO Muhammad(talk) 09:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Commons size criterion is higher (1500 vs 1000px). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That still doesn't put this inside the WP size guideline. Thegreenj 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well photographed and size is not too far below current requirements. Also it's annoying to see that yet again the original nominator has not been informed of this delist! --Fir0002 22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is still definitely an image that makes the viewer want to know more. Mfield (talk)
Delist Small and very harsh lighting on the right side of the subject --Thanks, Hadseys 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Small, bad lighting, poor composition. It's a difficult subject to get a photo of, but even so, this image isn't good enough to be featured any longer. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Size should not be the only reason for delisting, per many precedents. NauticaShad es 15:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The image still has fairly good resolution, it's alot better than other pictures out there. Also I assume since no replacement has been found that this is as high as the resolution will get. Image size does not mean an image cannot be featured, that's saying that image size is far more important than EV, in my opinion, the EV of this is astounding. Jerry teps (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: This is embarrassing, originally I thought that the aerogel was the brick, then I realized it was the clear object below it, the picture poorly illustrates this and the only thing we have to go on is the caption. I fail to see how this problem got past the original nomination. Jerry teps (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless someone wants to send me a small sample as a late christmas present! Noodle snacks (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think a bigger resolution would help the viewer understand the subject any better. Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could make you some Noodle snacks. I spent much of the fall trying to make spheres of the stuff. de Bivort 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Jerry Teps. Size aside, this image focuses much more on the details of the brick than the aerogel supporting it. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerogel has very little surface detail, even at the SEM level it looks like glass. de Bivort 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Diego pmc.--Avala (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a high EV and the relatively small size does not really hinder it. That is, unless we have a similar image of better size/quality ofcourse. Fransw (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]