Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Laila Peak.jpg

File:Laila Peak.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 12:56:01

•  Info (Original nomination)
•  Delist Nice view, but far below today's FP and QI standards. --A.Savin 12:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist --StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist Pretty, but tiny. Give me twice this resolution and I'd vote to keep. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep. I feel like we should keep really good or striking small pictures from the early digital photography age as historical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist Below 2 MP. A landscape would have to be in the 2-4 MP range for me to say "I wouldn't vote for this now, but I wouldn't delist it either." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist Slightly underexposed (sky), and the WB seems too warm, but the main issue is definitely the size. In years 2000-2001 I remember I was among the first to own a digital camera, working with floppy disks (almost this model). Maximum resolution 0.35 Mpx 🔬😭 Nice gadget at these old times to avoid developing the photos on paper before inserting them in university reports, however I really don't think any of these documents would have ever made a great image. Even at this period it was very clear the quality was disappointingly low compared to the standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Keep Per Ikan Kekek. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Regretful delist If there were some way we could at least recognize the independently commendable elements (the composition and lighting), I wish we could. In those areas it could certainly serve as an example to emulate.Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
•  Delist I am not swayed by Ikan's arguments; there is no such category as far as I'm aware, and this image doesn't meet the current FP bar, imo.--Peulle (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment If historical digital photos can't be grandfathered in, why vote? Someone should create a bot that will automatically remove FP status from all photos below 2MP and run it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• What does "historical digital photos" mean? A picture shot with a shortage of pixels? If it was taken with a film camera, the picture would appear far better. Example (year 1943, size 8,073 × 6,449 pixels). (And example of a digital photograph uploaded in 2005 that I would support again in 2020). Does a lithograph become more interesting if digitalized with a bad (very old) image scanner? It doesn't make sense -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Points well taken, but why not do this kind of delisting with a bot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I guess I do think that there should be some kind of acknowledgement of good pioneering use of the new digital technology, but if we want to revoke the FP status of everything under 2MP, a bot should be created and run. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• As for me, the photo is also a bit short on wow side, although it of course may have been considered unusual at the timepoint of promotion. But meanwhile we have lots of impressive mountain views, and I'm also not quite sure if the upright format is the best one for this scenery. That said, I still think what should be delisted is not to be decised via bot, but needs consensus instead. --A.Savin 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--A.Savin 13:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)