Reason

Nom'ed in 2005. Currently does not meet the size requirements. In addition, the quality is not really up to par; note the quality of the grass, especially in the foreground.

Previous nomination/s

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Traditional hay stack

Nominator

ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣

• Delist — ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 00:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. FWIW it does meet the current size guidelines (and I don't regard that as a good reason to delist regardless). Apart from that, no it's not stunning, is unfortunately a bit cutoff at top, I can't imagine it would pass on today's standards, but it's not terrible either and has certain charms which appeal. This is the type of thing I can live with as an older FP. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty much per Jron, it's still an appealing, encyclopedic and pretty good image which outweighs the reasons given to delist. Cat-five - talk 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Poor quality. The fact that it's an older FP is a very poor reason to keep. -- AJ24 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nominator and photographer notified. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original nominator i will abstain. My reasoning at the time was less for the quality and more the encyclopedic content. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you feel uncomfortable, I don't think there's any reason you can't !vote. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's still a highly attractive photo that meets size requirements, even if it's towards the low end of quality now. That said, it's ripe for replacement with a new, better FP made with modern equipment (4 years is a long time in digital camera quality), but I don't see any reason to rush to remove it before then. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist A good encyclopedic image but not up to modern FP standards. Fletcher (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept MER-C 08:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I am the author of this image) I uploaded the original version here Paulnasca (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for any future delist noms if you check back here - please refer to bigger 'better' version now uploaded by creator (if it still exists) and consider a 'Delist and replace' instead. --jjron (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]