- Reason
- Unidentified, color issues, low quality, obviously superseded, obscured, etc...
- Previous nomination/s
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bee Pollenating a Rose
- Previous nominator informed
- Nominator
- ZooFari
- Delist — ZooFari 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist Small and macro bar has been raised. --Muhammad(talk) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Meets minimum size requirement. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The composition and aesthetics of this image are exceptional. There's more to macro photography that DOF and resolution. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- How are they exceptional? I can't even see the details that make up the identification—- and it is all on composition. ZooFari 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean "make up the identification"? It is unidentified, but since it used to illustrate pollination, rather than the taxonomic group of the flower or insect, this is a bit less important. de Bivort 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's why it is unidentified. It does not display details enough to find the ID. And since there is no identification, there's no EV to support FP status. There are far more images showing pollination that includes the ID of the pollinator. Even if it was as you assert, this image is not the best illustration for pollination. ZooFari 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean "make up the identification"? It is unidentified, but since it used to illustrate pollination, rather than the taxonomic group of the flower or insect, this is a bit less important. de Bivort 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- How are they exceptional? I can't even see the details that make up the identification—- and it is all on composition. ZooFari 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept No consensus--wadester16 16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)