Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2013 at 03:02:33

Info Slightly off center, and we have a much better FP of the same view. Neither of those are enough for a delist in themselves IMO, but combined they would justify a relisting. (Original nomination)
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is much overexposed compared to File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg although we didn't get a clear consensus in our previous discussion in our sister project. The high quality File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg is another reason to support this delisting. J Kadavoor J e e 04:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Arcalino (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it usual to have no such denom listing posted to the image page (or the image talk page) itself? I would seriously suggest to do so, several users may have watchlisted those images and may have commented here.--Denniss (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I don't think this was ever standard practice, but it's a good idea and I'll create a template for it for future noms. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]