Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Geisha and client

Geisha and Client[edit]

Reason: no caption, nothing special
Nominator: Wutschwlllm

Delist — Wutschwlllm 14:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fix the caption. And just stating nothing special is a little thin as an argument. From the nomination page Beyond the manufactured imagery of Hollywood, this is a rare glimpse of what a real geisha looks like when she is working in the evening -- when the simple act of lighting a cigar becomes art. For the sake of authenticity and out of respect for the original tradition [this picture was nominated]. --Dschwen 15:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first nomination. — Arjun 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The image has some encyclopaedic value but it is not at all pleasing to my eyes (partly because of the unpleasant flash illumination and image noise). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blow highlights! She's entirely white! ;P 24.239.185.63 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~. Looks like a typical photograph, ~~probably reproducable~~. --Tewy 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm going entirely off of Howcheng here, in that it's not a very common image. My comment about it being a typical photograph stands, however. --Tewy 07:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This does not represent WP's best work. Witty lama 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Nothing special about the image. Also very grainy. And blown highlights per 24.239.185.63 :) --⁪froth^{T C} 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Do you know how difficult is to get a picture of a real geisha? First of all, Japanese people are rarely ever allowed the chance to be entertained by a geisha, and non-Japanese even rarer. Then to actually have her and the client allow themselves to be photographed in a shot that could be widely reproduced? Tewy says it's probably reproducible and I would argue that it's not all likely. If you were lucky enough to even gain audience with a geisha, most photography would have to be of a private nature. howcheng {chat} 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It doesn't fit the size requirements, it's hardly encyclopedic, and it has no caption. Why1991 04:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Hardly encyclopedic"? Sorry, but I don't see how you can say that. This is a real geisha, not a movie image or a stereotype. Compare this with the picture of the two maiko (also up for delist) and see the world of difference. howcheng {chat} 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check again, it -does- fit the size requirements.24.239.185.63 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really like the photo. --Bernard 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Real geisha? Big deal. If they don't want to be photographed, that doesn't mean their photographs should be considered "rare" and FP --⁪froth^{T C} 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uhm, actually, that's pretty much the definition of rare. If they don't like to be photographed, that means that not many photographs of real geisha are in existance, which makes it rare. Also, please change your delist in the above to comment, as you've already voted for delist. Makes it less confusing. 24.239.185.63 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ah sorry I had forgotten that I had already voted. But my point was that if I started my own little ninja clan that refused to be photographed nobody would even care and I would definately not get FP if some paparazzi got a shot of me. So that shouldn't necessarily be criteria for FP.. although I definately don't dispute the enc of the Geisha article --⁪froth^{T C} 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pictures of your ninja clan would still be rare. Notability is the main difference. --Dschwen 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Froth is right, if they don't want to be photographed, then too bad. --Arad 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per original nomination. --Bridgecross 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its rare. 'nuf said. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rare and encyclopedic.A mcmurray 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - convinced by Howcheng and other 'hard to replace' defenders. highlunder 02:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Not WP best work. And after all, is there any true evidence that this is rare? I still think any one interested in the art can pose like this. Even if it's rare, it's still not the best work. --Arad 22:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am siding towards delisting due to the aesthetics and quality of this image, I feel there is a big difference between an actual geisha in action and someone interested in the art dressing up as a geisha. Thats like the difference between a rare photo of Marilyn Monroe naked and a Marilyn impersonator posing naked. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol. Actaully, there is only one Marilyn Monroe and that only one is dead. As long as i know, Japan is not out of Geishas and this is not the only Geisha. ;-) --Arad 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but the point is that real geishas do no often allow themselves to be photographed, and that a mocked up image of a geisha would not be encyclopedic. Perhaps a simpler analogy would be getting someone to dress up as a New York Yankee and then using that to illustrate a baseball player.
      - Correct. The number of people who get to actually meet a real geisha in their lifetime is ridiculously small. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How can you prove that this is a real geisha? I'm not saying it's not, but if I make an exact same image, with a fake geisha, and a superior quality, and never tell anyone that the geisha is fake, who would know that it is in fact fake? But if i do the same to (for example) Marilyn Monroe, if she was alive, she could say that the image is fake. I just want to say that Geishas are not going to disappear in one day, and I'm really sorry if they don't want to be photographed. --Arad 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rarity, and in the spirit of fighting this tide of delists. Debivort 05:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delist.we need to find a better picture68.61.233.160 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Incredible picture that just needs a caption. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Wonderful caption, Dschwen. ♠ SG →Talk 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why geishas don't want to be photographed? I've never heard that they don't want to. Maybe because I'm not interested in the but I'll be happy to know why they don't want to be photographed. In their wiki article, there's nothing about this, and i searched on Internet, i found nothing. --Arad 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the question, what I think it is is the fact that Geishas are rare, are rarely photographed. Arjun 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this photo...honestly, as a geisha "expert," I can't stress how rare an image like this is. A Western buisnessman being tended by a real geisha? At an ozashiki? If we delist this, FP doesn't mean anything. I feel very strongly that we keep it. --Iriseyes 15:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that FP is also about image quality, not just encyclopaedic value. A FP usually has both. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Where are you going to see an image like this.Bewareofdog 22:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Raven4x4x 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]