In today's world, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg has become a topic of great relevance and interest to people of all ages and backgrounds. Whether due to its impact on society, its historical relevance or its influence on different aspects of daily life, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg has captured the attention of many and has become a topic of study, debate and reflection. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg, from its origin and evolution to its influence today. We will analyze its impact in various areas, as well as the future perspectives it generates. Without a doubt, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Rolling-thunder-cloud.jpg is a topic that does not leave anyone indifferent and that deserves to be analyzed from different perspectives to understand its true scope in today's society.
Weak keep Exceptions can be made to the 1000px size requirement if the image is unique, and I think this one is pretty unique. CillaИ ♦ XC02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:IGNORE states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How would the quality of Wikipedia be degraded if this picture is no longer featured? Cacophony06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delist A stunning composition, but just not enough detail. Storm clouds are not infrequent and they're often spectacular as a glance through the internet illustrates. Yes, this storm was a specific 'unique' event, but no more so than all the other unique storms that rage around the world. I understand Phoenix 15's arguments, but IMO we're going too far the other way - FPs should be the very, very best; maybe we need a "Good Picture" designation for pictures like this (and the ground squirrel above) so that we can recognize that they're above average pictures that are encyclopedic, but not quite at the very pinnacle of the picture material we have. 99.236.51.219 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that was me; I've removed the strikethrough Matt Deres13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Delist Not because of the resolution, but the technical quality is low, there are a lot of compression artifacts because of low file size, besides it looks like the buildings are leaning towards the center from both ends (lens distortion?) Atomsgive00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Delist again. The subject is impressive and the composition is good but the quality is just far too bad, I think (compare with with the quality of this cloud image, for example). Also, the image is not used to illustrate any particular storm or other event... --KFP (talk | contribs) 07:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)