Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 07:13:31

Info Downscaled and still unsharp as hell. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Granada (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delist reason is nothing that wasn't touched on in the original nom discussion. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Overall sharp enough for a panning shot. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above... Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Although I will concede that it may be too soon to do a keep/delist nom at this time, it is the photographer himself who nominates this for delisting. Who am I to disagree when someone says their own photo is not good enough?--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The author wanted it himself so...@KennyOMG: , @Cmao20: , @Martin Falbisoner: --Booth sift 01:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Granada, you want to delist your own photo that you nominated yourself? That's very confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Granada can explain the motivation, last year he was convinced that the picture was a FP and now the opposite, indeed confusing Poc o² 08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standards change. In 2019 I did better at the nordic combined world championships and some of the panned shots of ski jumpers were sharp even at 100%. --Granada (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Valid argument to me Poc o² 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate any photos you believe would merit FP designation. I feel very strange being asked to negate a vote I made last February, so I decline to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, would you support this photo now that you have gathered more experience as a reviewer? I think that that would be rather the question to answer. --Poc o² 21:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yes, I would. Keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote I did better, not good enough for FPC. --Granada (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is good enough for FP, but if you successfully nominate 5 or 7 new photos of similar motifs that are way better than this, we could revisit this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--Vulp here 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others -- Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If Granada thinks he has better images in the pipeline, let him nominate them first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel, I'd be happy to support a delist and replace if the newer image is similar and better. That's what I plan to do with Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 1.jpg if I ever get around to reshooting it with my yet to be acquired Nikon Z 7 Mark II. For me, it is only acceptable to delist an image that still meets our FP criteria on Commons if 1) there is a proposed replacement which is clearly better and 2) the creator of the original FP consents to it (usually this means a like-for-like replacement by the creator). This stands in contrast to English Wikipedia, where 2 is not required. Here 1 is not met. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's a good idea to nominate that big panorama for any kind of delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted.