Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg

File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, not delisted

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:50:53

•  Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 700 × 472 pixels??? That's less than one fifth of the guideline 2 Mpx! Incredible that this was ever featured. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Absolutely Keep Despite its inferior resolution it is a unique and outstanding image from the war in Sarajevo in 1992. It cannot be reproduced, an attempt has been made previously to get original material in higher resolution. It is not possible. It deals with matters much more important to humanity than YAAI (Yet Another Anthropod Image) and every single (OK, thats only five) FP I have created. The image is used on +200 pages on +30 wiki projects and is a perfect example of exceptional value being a strong mitigating reasons for allowing < 2MPx. The image has been nominated for delisting in 2007 and again in 2008 and I very much agree with the detailed arguments for keeping it put forth by especially BenAveling in 2007. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is an interesting picture, and I haven't nominated it for deletion - merely for removal from the list of Featured Pictures, whose standards it clearly doesn't fulfill. Were this nominated today, it would receive an FPX, and be closed after 24 hours. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that it would probably be FPXed by a user seeing the 2 MPx guideline as a strict rule which cannot be mitigated. However, I also think it is likely that it would be contested by another user within 24 h using an argument about a strong mitigating reason. It is close to the lower resolution limit of what I can accept, but for me it would still pass. I am unsure whether it would actually pass if renominated today. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Besides, when you think about it a little, it becomes clear that this photo is most likely not a "war snapshot", but staged to some degree. The image description talks about the musician playing at funerals during war time. That's interesting, and I do not doubt that, but the picture obviously does not show him playing at one of those funerals. He is sitting on a pile of rubble in a destroyed building, and the only one around to watch or listen appears to have been the photographer, who probably asked him to pose for that very photo. Shots like this, showing people doing unusual things in war-torn regions of the world, are a dime a dozen, and, I dare say, almost a cliché of modern war photography. Just look through the archives of the World Press Photo Awards. You will find many more examples there. -- JovanCormac 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I am very much aware that it is probably partly staged (I consider the rubble for real but the pose of the musician staged) and that it has been generated partly for propagandistic purposes. However, I perceive it as way more inventive and refined in its composition than, e.g., the recent File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, and it has an interesting peaceful micro-story about a musician playing at funerals under great danger. Thus, within its genre of war-photography it is very well made - except for the resolution. This micro-story could of course be propaganda in itself. My decision to vote keep is based on an assumption that this part of the story is actually true. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep My vote has not changed since the last time it was tried to be delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I've asked the author to provide us a higher resolution of his image. Since his last contribution was more than 2 months ago, I suggest we wait for his response, and possibly his actions before pursuing with the delisting. While doing that, I'm thinking that we could add a step in the delisting process, where the author/uploader/original nominator would be informed about the delisting proposal, so they could take actions for correcting the apparent flaws --S23678 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The author was asked in August 2008 already and declined. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist —kallerna™ 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep--2+2=4 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom. Delisting doesn't mean deleting, you know... Lycaon (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep despite my opposition in the original nomination, I consider it bad form trying to delist pictures yearly until it finally succeeds. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • With all respect, that is a pretty stupid reason for voting "keep", as it has nothing to do with the picture itself. It actually makes me consider re-nominating it for delisting immediately after this nomination is closed, should it not succeed. The quality of this picture is inferior, and we all know it. There is no chance in hell this would make FP today. Keeping it anyway means granting special privileges to older pictures by saying they do not have to measure up to today's standards, which is insulting and discouraging for anyone working today. It's the stuff feudalism and fiefdomism are made of, the stuff nobility thrives on. When they do it, they are being criticised for it nowadays, even though some may still consider it stylish. But for a project like Commons, which is barely 5 years old, even talking about "old stuff", much less "tradition", is just plain ridiculous; and pseudo-tradition is the only reason people vote to keep pictures like this. -- JovanCormac 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep extremly strong picture --Jklamo (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree with Slaunger. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)