Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg

File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 14:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg

•  Info created by Dave Meyers - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Claus
•  Support -- Claus (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support A bit overexposed in her hair, but generally very good. I will check the commons policy on nudity though.--Snaevar (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Question Is it still considered nude even if the breasts and genitals are (partially) covered? —stay (sic)! 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• She's not wearing clothes, is she? lol -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The source file from which this was taken has been deleted: File:Alicia Silverstone lässt die Hüllen fallen.jpg, as it was determined that the OTRS tickets did not give proper confirmation of its license, see: Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Jujutacular ^talk 00:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support :) —stay (sic)! 05:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --JovianEye (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Support If the license allows for it. Tastefully done. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice woman, well captured, BUT Blown highlights in the main subject. --Cayambe (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because resolution under 2 MP --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose just 1.8 MP, per Wladyslaw --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment -- Concerning the possibility of hiding certain images, I fully agree with Muhammad that FPC should be work and family safe. However I started a discussion some time ago about how to deal with pornographic nominations (not the case, I know) and, as far as I remember, no clear consensus was reached. From what I recall (can't find the thread though) the majority of editors was of the opinion that no special treatment was due to such nominations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice subject, of course, but blown highlights and resolution a bit low. I expect something better from a posing model like this. --Cephas (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose No value for Wikipedia. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

not featured. Deleted copyvio. -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)