Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg

Image:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, not delisted

•  Info Pleasant looking picture, but very low resolution. It's initial nomination was in 2005. (Original nomination)
•  Delist --diego_pmc (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Looks unsharp, overexposed sky, CA and the composition is not very thought-out IMO --Simonizer (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• There are lots of reason to delist this one, but I think it would have been hard not to have the sky overexposed. And we're talking about a fractional part of the picture. Benh (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure it was not my only reason but i can mention it, can't I? --Simonizer (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I was just finding this isn't a valid reason IMO, hence my comment. Sorry if you found my words a bit harsh. Benh (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Very valuable image despite its small resolution. See previous deletion request for more input. --Kimse (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Small resolution has only historical reason, in that time it was normal. But wow if high. --Karelj (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are images from nearly 100 years ago that are double or more this one. I don't have to actually show one of them for you to believe me, do I? diego_pmc (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Good photography doesn't change that fast. However it's small. Why not ask Evstafiev for a bigger version instead of starting a delist request? --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I asked him for a higher res version. diego_pmc (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep The image is much better than boring high resolution landscapes.--Sensl (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep How many times do we have to vote keep on this image? --Dori - Talk 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Of course. I still don't understand how it was ever featured at this puny size. This is not en:wiki after all. Lycaon (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep --SvonHalenbach (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist No longer meet FP criteria --Base64 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Not very useful at this size. Benh (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Much too small compared with modern criterion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)--MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That's right, let delist one of a very few FP images that has the soul and the value, and what will be we left with: a high resolution 300 degree indoor panorama of baggage claim area at Hong Kong International Airport near midnight by base64, or blurred candles by benh, or zero encyclopedic value Mooring bollard at sunset, Lyme Regis, Dorset, UK by MichaelMaggs, or boring landscapes by Simonizer?--Sensl (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder if you really mean what you say. Anyhow... if our pictures are so boring, we are waiting for yours. Benh (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Let me assure you that I said exactly what I meant to say and that I tried hard to say it in the nicest form possible.--Sensl (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • If in your opinion the community made a mistake by electing those pictures to Common's featured pictures, feel free to nominate them for delisting --Simonizer (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid it will not resolve the problem. Until sharp and high resolution images of common identical birds, insects, buildings would get promoted only because they are sharp and high resolution while unique, hard to take and hard to find around the NET images would get deliested, Commons FP is going to remain a laughable institution.--Sensl (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Then iam asking me why you want to be part of this laughable institution. Feel free to leave it --Simonizer (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
              • An easy one. I am here because I love to laugh.--Sensl (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Then we are alltogther a big laughing family, because we are laughing too --Simonizer (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
            • What would be laughable here is someone who'd hide herself behind some other username because she got upset for some reason. I agree with you on most part, and I wish I could myself bring more diversity to commons FP, but not everyone has opportunities to take a trip on helicopter or dive underwater or, also, have some great ideas. We do what we can. -- Benh (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
              • The images you refer to are very good, but they are hardly unique. I'm talking about really unique images.Sure, not everybody has the opportunity to take unique images in a war zone, risk their life for an amazing image of human suffering, to show the horror of the war, but everybody has the opportunity to vote for keeping one as FP, if one is nominated for delisting as we have here.--Sensl (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
                • No wonder these images are good and aren't very badly "photo shopped" (in two words) and blurred, they were taken by you. Everybody also has the opportunity to say "we don't want thumbnail sized FP" when author has bigger version in his archive. What emotions could convey a couple dozens of pixels ? Impressionism was popular in 19th century... Benh (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • It is getting increasingly hard to follow your thoughts, but I still would like to give you a good advise: please, if you could, before making a statement, and I mean any statement, try to give it another thought. For instance to justify the reason for delisting of the image you wrote: "Delist Not very useful at this size". I went to the image page and hit "Check usage" button. Here's what I got: "Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg is used on at least 192 pages in 28 projects." Is the image really not very useful? Is any of your high resolution images is at least half as useful as this one?--Sensl (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist We certainly wouldn't promote an image of this size now. Let's strive for consistency. Pretty as it is, older promotions shouldn't get preferential treatment. Durova (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural objection - has anyone contacted Rama and given her a chance to try and upload a higher-res version first? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• diego_pmc has. Benh (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Delist Too small. But as said sensl (sometimes a good girl!!!!), this picture has a great historical value, so why not proposing it as a valued image candidate? -- Sanchezn (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep-- DarkAp89  Commons 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep Yeah. There is a really valuable picture for years but now it violates rule created 5 minutes ago so we must delist it. This is not the way of building any project like commons is. There were no 10mpix cameras in 1992-95 when the war in Bosnia was going on, think about it. --Aktron (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• This was probably shot on film and scanned so we can expect more. Author has a high resolution version but won't give it up, as stated here. The 2mpix rule was on guidelines since I began contributing, as far as I remember. Benh (talk)

•  Keep Commons can be proud of this picture. Even with its size it has much more importance than many others of insects, birds or something else that can be repeated hundreds of times. --wau > 16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist The author's response reposted by Benh tipped the scale for me. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Keep --Raminus (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Delist Way to small. It should be at least 1MP. -- Ram-Man 11:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 10 Delist, 11 Keep, 0 Neutral => not delisted. Simonizer (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)