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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screenshot of JSTOR.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Wikiuser13 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Same reason as this: This non-free image is "hidden by default and [is] only shown if you click on a link titled "show". If something is so unimportant that it can be hidden by default, then it can hardly be said that removal of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. Thus, the images violate WP:NFCC#8. " Wcam (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (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: relisted on 2021 February 8. FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Music Week cover December 2020.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2021 February 8. FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clash cover November 2016.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: relisted on 2021 February 8. FASTILY 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attitude cover December 2020.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

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: Withdrawn -FASTILY 02:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rolling Stone cover February 2021.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alexismata7 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fan spam 109.78.203.56 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexismata7 wrote: "I can commit to changing the other magazine covers illustrating other characters except for Rolling Stone".[1] Why can you change the others but not Rolling Stone?

The infobox includes the logo, it does not need to also include a cover image. Rolling Stone has over 50 years of famous covers, there's literally a book about it Rolling Stone 50 Years of Covers. The article includes the John Lennon Yoko Ono cover because it is one of, if not 'the most famous of all Rolling Stone cover images. (The article also includes a cover image 500 Greatest songs because it consists entirely of typography and it has been argued that it is not subject to copyright.) The Dua Lipa cover is not being used to say anything notable about Rolling Stone or that particular cover image, it isn't notable, it is not being used for commentary. Template:Non-free magazine cover "Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." Of all the 50 years of covers there is not a good fair use justification for using the February 2021 cover over other more notable covers.

I'm saying I do not believe there is any fair use justification to use a cover image simply because it is recent. -- 109.79.77.239 (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to stop all the fuss you're making, I can restore the images. Why can I restore the others except Rolling Stone? = We are talking about the fact that I am going to delete 4 images that I contributed because you say that I uploaded it for spam and I can't leave even one? My reason is that Dua Lipa is one of the most notable figures in popular culture today and Rolling Stone is a magazine that is effectively grounded in popular culture. It is not an obligation to have recent covers but if I already did it because it was my way of contributing to Wikipedia ... what is your problem with that? Do you have any disagreement with Lipa being in the picture? -- Alexismata7 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexismata7 does not seem to understand that the use of copyright images must be justified. The fame or notability of Dua Lipa might be justification for using a non-free image of her in an article about her, but even then only if no suitable free images are available. It does not justify using her image in an article about Rolling Stone because it doesn't say anything notable about Rolling Stone magazine. I'm not disagreeing with all the image choice Alexismata7 made, (changing the cover image of Glamour_(magazine) from Demi Lovato to [2] to Amber Heard seems pointless but harmless, similarly pointless was the changing the cover of Elle from Lovato] to Sophie Turner) for example the cover image of Emma Roberts pregnant Alexismata7 added to Cosmopolitan (magazine) is arguably notable and irreplaceable because it shows something unusual, the first instance of a pregnant woman on the cover of that magazine, which other publications deemed newsworthy.[3][4] (Still in the long history of a magazine there may be other far better choice and the fair use argument is somewhat undermined by the fact that there are older out of copyright images already being used in the article, so the recent cover is not "irreplaceable") A recent cover is just a recent cover, there's no good reason for an encyclopedia to use it over any other cover, and it also means there's no reason not to replace the cover image with a more recent cover next month (and there's a real risk we'd end up with something like Justin Beiber, or BTS everywhere, which is why I object to fan spam and have previously object to attempts to change the Rolling Stone cover to something just because it was recent.) I don't believe the Dua Lipa Rolling Stone cover image meets the fair use requirements...

• File:Rolling_Stone_cover_February_2021.jpeg claims that the image meets the fair use requirements, but
  • (WP:NFCC#1) No free equivalent? Maybe, there is the text only cover already included in the Rolling Stone article which could be considered a free equivalent: 500 Greatest songs
  • (WP:NFCC#8) Contextual significance? The image is not being used for commentary, nothing about that image specifically is adding to readers understanding of the article. There's no special relevance.

I'm not saying Alexismata7 cannot add some other Dua Lipa magazine cover image to some other Wikipedia article but he would have a more compelling argument if he had not spammed multiple articles, and was adding a cover image to a publication that did not have a long history of famous covers, and if the Dua Lipa cover had some special relevance to the article. (He might still be able to justify using the Rolling Stone cover image in the article Future Nostalgia because it is promoting that album.) Almost any other publication would be a better choice, as I said before there's literally a book full of famous Rolling Stone covers, and many many better choices you could much more easily argue for if you want to improve the Rolling Stone article. -- 109.79.68.226 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to access this and I can tell you that you have allowed me to realize that I am wrong about some things. I invite you to go to the Rolling Stone talk page and argue with other users what the cover of the main article should be because I myself commit to uploading it-- Alexismata7 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that a discussion has started on Talk:Rolling_Stone#Another_New_Cover_Photo_2021 (I had thought that page would not attract any attention or discussion). It looks as if, at least in this one case of the Rolling Stone cover, that local discussion will be enough to decide the matter, and I withdraw my request for admins to delete this one image specifically. -- 109.79.68.226 (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2021 (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.