Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Tram interior edit1.jpg

File:Tram interior edit1.jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2013 at 19:31:50

•  Info below 2 megapixels (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- darkweasel94 19:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep -- it was and still is an awesome picture - small or not! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment Above 2 MP is a new criteria; not applicable for old FPs. BTW, the original file is above 2 MP. JKadavoor Jee 07:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • FPs should always be the best of the best - if something wouldn't pass FPC today it seems legitimate to nominate it for delisting. In addition to the reason I provided, I also don't see the big wow factor, but that may be because I've been regularly travelling with that tram type for all my life. darkweasel94 09:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not against your delist request. Just pointed that we can't delist all previous FPs below 2MP (the only reason you gave for the request) or with GFDL only license. We can delist if the overall quality is disappointing, though. (I took time to find the source file in this case which is not transferred to Commons so far. Another example how careless we are on the licensing matters.) JKadavoor Jee 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep This is a picture taken in 2002, uploaded 2005, so we'd make allowances perhaps even if nominated now. But Jkadavoor is right that we don't delist simply because of size or licence changes to the FP criteria. This is a wonderful picture and I'd take one of these over 10,000 QI train photos. Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep per Jkadavoor and Colin.  ■ MMXX ^talk 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep 10 years from now we will be saying this is a treasure. Besides, no way am I de-listing a child that cute. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Delist --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep I see no reason to delist. It is the overall statement of the image which makes it to an FPC. Only size (< 2MP) should never be a reason to delist an FP (instead in cases where details are necessary, e.g. with panorama shots or complex architecture shots). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep per others. --Laitche (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Still a great (and really nice) picture! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep A wonderful image, its essence unaffected by its resolution. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep --JLPC (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Nce, no reason for delist. --Karelj (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Michael Barera (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep This is outstanding   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep 2MPx margin is irrelevant for older FP's. --Mile (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 delist, 14 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. JKadavoor Jee 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)