Another reason to love US Government public domain: a notable photographer who hadn't gotten a nod from FPC yet, and quite a portrait. Has an informal quality ahead of its time; at a glance one wouldn't expect this framing and composition from a photograph taken 75 years ago. Restored version of File:Ben Shahn.jpg.
Very cool picture, but I don't know how it would fit into an encyclopedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's used at the photographer's biography and at the article about Jackson Square, New Orleans under the arts section. DurovaCharge! 02:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for it as a good picture. I still don't think WP should be an art gallery.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure you understand what is going on here. We're voting on whether the image meets these criteria. — JakeWartenberg 22:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's questioning it based on Criterion 5. --jjron (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks. The section you refered me to says in part: "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." I hadn't read this before but I had the feeling that a picture in an encyclopedia is supposed to illustrate something. This one only shows what one person's face looks like, and he is not the subject of an article. Still it is an outstanding photograph, as I said before. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per this discussion. Many thanks to the reviewers, but the abuse of the closers at this process has become intolerable. DurovaCharge! 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for whenever this nom gets unwithdrawn. Encyclopedia value isn't super high, but it's sufficient.--ragesoss (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
