I couldn't find any exceptions to this, and I don't think we can tell if someone is sleeping with their eyes open in a picture. It may still be possible, so this would need critique.
Updated
Posted under General
I can't find any counter-examples either after having looked. I'd be hesitant to do this implication though, only for the fact that a sleeping figure could potentially not be facing the viewer, or be obscured by sheets or blankets, or have their face buried in pillows.
In those cases, eyes (closed or otherwise) would not be visually present, and shouldn't be tagged.
Ok, I found one. It's wasn't tagged sleeping, but looks like it should be: post #387654. Ignore the sleeping dog's closed eyes, I'm refering to the figure on the left.
Updated
The only instance I could think of would involve the sleeping bubble on a character with their eyes open. post #362570 as something of an example.
Shinjidude said:
a sleeping figure could potentially not be facing the viewer, or be obscured by sheets or blankets, or have their face buried in pillows.
In those cases, eyes (closed or otherwise) would not be visually present, and shouldn't be tagged.
Funny, I had been thinking about the same a while ago. One would believe there were pictures depicting couples much like post #288989, but with the sleeping character facing the wall. However, those pics are not easy to find.
EDIT: Here - post #155957! Also post #154551 (if she is unconscious instead of asleep, then there is a tagging error).
Updated
I guess even if those examples are rare, it's still a valid argument against the implication. While sleeping "naturally" implies closed eyes, the closed_eyes tag means you have to actually see the eyes.
Shinjidude said: I can't find any counter-examples either after having looked. I'd be hesitant to do this implication though, only for the fact that a sleeping figure could potentially not be facing the viewer, or be obscured by sheets or blankets, or have their face buried in pillows.
For this reason, I can't put it through.