Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop

Discussion re. Badagnani's image uploads
(continued discussion from workshop page, re. User:Badagnani's use of Image:Tenorviolin.jpg on the Violotta article), and its deletion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise:

Comment - The article linked above is most certainly about this instrument, and a detailed discographical reference for the very recording whose cover was in the photo was already in the Discography section of the article. The deletion of the cover image within hours, allowing for no discussion, was very, very wrong and the kind editor needs to reverse her/himself on this and go through the proper channels. Everyone makes mistakes, I suppose, and in this case the deleting editor doesn't seem to know much about classical music. That's okay; it's never too late to admit an error. Our educational purpose, even when discussing obscure musical instruments, really is an overarching concern, and deleting such an invaluable LP cover image within 6 hours, allowing for no discussion or input from other editors, was just incorrect procedure, undermining the trust and faith we should hold in our admins here. Emulating Abu's behavior, as the editor has done (including Wiki-stalking, as s/he has admitted s/he has done, as well as deleting within hours, allowing for no input from other editors) is not a proper way to behave. Thank you all for your consideration, and thoughtful discussion here. Badagnani 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This was an extremely obvious speedy deletion for invalid fair use. The article is about the instrument, but not about the recording. Clear case matching WP:FAIR, e.g. examples 2 and 7. The recording was mentioned in the discography, but wasn't an object of encyclopedic critical discussion and analysis (not even talking about critical analysis of the cover itself, as the often-ignored rules would demand.)
 * About process: the 48-hour rule is about giving the uploader time to become aware of the deletion and to comment. You were aware, and you did comment. So the waiting had fulfilled its purpose, and there was no further need for protracting it longer. I see no conceivable reasons to overturn the deletion, and (although I of course can't stop you from doing it), I would tend to regard any attempt at using DRV on this very clearcut case as a frivolous and disruptive attempt at gaming the system, in the sense of the proposed principle Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.
 * About me not knowing much about classical music: Incidentally, I have a degree in music history, I am right this moment listening to some rather weird canzone by Girolamo Frescobaldi played on period instruments, and I wrote my thesis on some obscure literature for uncommon solo stringed instruments. Not that it matters. I'm all for presenting information on obscure musical instruments. I'll give a barnstar to anybody who walks into a music museum and comes back with a free image of a violotta. Doesn't change the facts of copyright though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the classical music update, Essjay. You're right -- it doesn't matter.   Jenolen    speak it!  08:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)