The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. TLSuda (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SFWA Bulletin no. 200 cover image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sandstein (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image is a magazine cover that fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image is a cover of a magazine used on an article about the non-profit that publishes it without any critical commentary about the cover. Since the article is about the group, not the publication, the only acceptable non-free image for infobox identification purposes would be a logo TLSuda (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The image is subject of critical commentary in Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America: "More than 50 authors wrote blog posts in objection to (...) the "exploitative"[9] cover image of no. 200 of the Bulletin, depicting a woman in a scalemail bikini (shown above)." In addition, the cover image of the association's principal publication conveys, in ways that words cannot, how the association portrays itself. The image is therefore necessary to aid with understanding of the article.  Sandstein  15:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that part about because I was looking in the wrong section. I don't know why another editor removed the image and added a different color that fails WP:NFCC worse. I would happily withdraw this nomination if we put the cover back (but in the section next to the commentary). Is that an good solution? TLSuda (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is now used in this way. Another user uploaded the more recent (non-sexist) cover image instead. The two would make an interesting contrast, but I think we shouldn't use the newer one in addition to the old one because it is not discussed in the text, or could we?  Sandstein  16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two covers are not necessary per WP:NFCC#3 and therefore one should be deleted. The cover that you've discussed is the subject of critical commentary in the article and also can be used for identification purposes, whereas the other cover is not the subject of critical commentary (WP:NFCC#8) and therefore should not be used and deleted. TLSuda (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Boli Star Chandigarh WInners.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Punjabwikiwatch (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

someone else's photo of people from a TV show to illustrate an article on the TV show. This falls under on of the unacceptable uses in Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 Peripitus (Talk) 22:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.