Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Karachi - Pakistan-market.jpg

File:Karachi - Pakistan-market.jpg, not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 22:03:35

•  Info Resolution 947 × 720, too small. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist I concur _→AzaToth 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep -- Still an amazing picture. No sense in delisting based on size. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist This is not small because technology has moved on, this is small because it was savagely downsampled. The camera shoots at 6.3 Mpx. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep per Alvesgaspar, technology has moved but not the impression what makes a featured picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read what 99of9 even said? _→AzaToth 12:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did and I wounder why this point was subsidiary backwards and now should be main argument for removal. In general I am for conservation of the status quo. A removal should only be possible in very well founded cases and sorry for that: but "to few pixels" is not very founded. Apart from that: commons is a online side and not a advertising agency which needs high resolution for pre-press work. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you might want to take it up on Commons:Image guidelines to reduce the requirements. _→AzaToth 13:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The original candidate was before the guidelines was set up. New pictures have to fulfill this rules, older picture have not. This is by the way a legal principle in each every civilized system. That is what I meant with conservation of the status has to be respected. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The featured picture criteria changes, and as the text on COM:FPC says "Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture." _→AzaToth 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything is said already in this case. And I guess you are familiar with the difference between "it may be decided" or "it has to be decided". I see no automatism, that FP get one day to small so they have to be removed. EOD --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Delist Although the question of Ex post facto law depends on you cultural background, the guideline remains clear on the subject, like Azatoth elaborated. Delisting is not about retroactively applying the current guidelines, it's about the personal believes concerning the consistent quality of the current cluster of featured pictures. From time to time this consistency ceases to exist from a subjective point of view. Hence, it remains an individual decision to delist an image for reasons such as downsampling. And so do I.

@Wladyslaw I'd be rather careful about defining civilized systems by their standing towards retroactive laws. Since you live in Germany, you might want to know that retroactive laws were applied twice in German history. Once at the Nuremberg trials and for the second time at the Wall-shooter's trial. Regarding your statement on the character of Commons: Commons:Project scope clearly defines that media files on the Commons are made available to all. That does include advertising agencies. It's not about either or, it's about making content available to all out there, and yes this includes advertising agencies. You might want to notice that advertising agencies are not the only ones re-using high resolution content. Closing the gap and being able to deliver content even to the professional media industry will help to accomplish the aim of a universal distribution of our media files to everyone. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Keep - most current nominations are paling compared to this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist Dura lex sed lex --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep Nice image, as Alvesgaspar. --Karelj (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist per 99of9 --Jovian Eye _storm 23:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist It really is a nice image with those colours and composition but, besides the fact that quality is very very low (it was taken a long time ago, technology changes bla bla bla whatever), I can see that focus is not on the guy. So it makes it even worse. Compare the blanket on the right side, nearest to the camera, well focused, with the same blanket, near the guy. The guy is out of focus. Lighting on his face is not very good either. Iso value is high at 400 (not determinant, I know), and f value is very low at 5,6. What 99of9 said is true too. Too many problems, not even geotagged; maybe valued image, but not FP, delist. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist The image very low size.. per 99of9. Ggia (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)