Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 23

Tariq Farooq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking at the deletion nomination discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Farooq (2nd nomination), it is not clear why it was decided to be removed, given the votes to keep. The missing references can be rectified. The page contains enough references to make this page relevant. This page is about a major figure in Pakistani and Austrian badminton history. World Champion, European Champion, national coach of Pakistan/Austria badminton team. I would like this deletion to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyda sh (talk • contribs) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If you want this to be overturned, you'll have to provide the references now, rather than having us blindly trust that The missing references can be rectified. The closure was entirely reasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of the second AFD, which was well explained by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft. The title has not been salted. The originator can create a new article, but it will be subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with no prejudice against recreation, though I would recommend any attempt to recreate the page go through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 13:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unless the references are actually provided as opposed to asserted. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The sun1.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

(Note: I am only requesting undeletion of the revision of the file deleted by Nyttend, not the one deleted by Tom)

This file was deleted for the reason "Wrong name, didn't realise that this name was already in use!". This shows that the author didn't want the file to be deleted, but merely renamed. Besides, deleting this file has screwed up the attribution history for File:The sun (color modified).jpg.

(Edit: I seem to have not realised the second version of File:The sun1.jpg is a merely a derivative of the first version avaliable at File:The sun (color modified).jpg. Please undelete the first version of the file by Lykaestria. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

This file should be undeleted (preferably to a different name such as Sun glare (1).jpg to avoid unsuspecting users overwriting this file)—Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The file you are requesting be restored was uploaded by Nyttend themselves four minutes before they deleted it. There's nothing to do here, and this should be closed as a waste of time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: Apologies, I seem to not have realised that the second version of the file is a derivative of the first version avaliable at File:The sun (color modified).jpg. In that case I request undeletion of the first version. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation of file, which was not salted. No opinion as to the merits of a deletion 14 or 16 years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the creation log shows that the file Nyttend uploaded as File:The sun1.jpg was also marked as a derivative work… of File:The sun1.jpg. It was uploaded at 04:08, deleted at 04:12, and File:The sun (color modified).jpg was uploaded at 04:13. It therefore seems possible that the two files may be the same — the desired rename may have been accomplished by deletion and reuploading.

Having said that, part of the attribution history is clearly still missing. At the time of uploading, there was a file on Commons titled File:The sun1.jpg, which judging by the Commons logs was transferred in Nov 2005 from the same file name on enwiki — the version that was later deleted by Tom (I’m guessing because at that point the file also existed on Commons). I’d therefore suggest that the version of File:The sun1.jpg deleted by Tom is {{TempUndelete}}d, to confirm whether it is the original work (and so whether it should stay undeleted to preserve attribution). Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the color modification in Nyttend's version seems to consist entirely of a black blob scribbled over the center of the original version of File:The sun1.jpg. The file's deletion as an F1 is no longer valid now that it's no longer on Commons; if there's legitimate reason to think Lykaestria's upload tagged with {{GFDL}} was not authored by Likaestria themself - and I don't think there is; that was the practice at the time for self-authored images - then Nyttend's derivative work is just as deleteable. Restore all versions (and then revert Nyttend's overwrite back to the original) and tag {{deleted on Commons}}. —Cryptic 10:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't very clear, this is what I would like to happen. Then, the version at commons (c:File:The sun1.jpg) should probably be undeleted (since it was deleted as having no source/permission, which we now know it has), but that should happen after everything else to ensure all the history is copied where it needs to be. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the deletion on Commons is bizarre, and was performed by an admin later desysopped for, among other things, insufficient care in mass deletions. I'd suggest taking it to c:COM:UDR. But there's still no reason to do anything locally that I see. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The derivative version is still hosted here, not on Commons; the original version is still in use as a redlink in numerous places here; the original version is plainly superior to the derivative version in all of the places the derivative version is currently used; and it's not a valid speedy anymore if the file doesn't exist on Commons and meets none of the other speedy deletion criteria here. Maybe they'll do the right thing over at Commons if we ask. Maybe they'll even do it promptly! But that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing right now. —Cryptic 00:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's reference: proper attribution history of an image requires that we list the contributors, and that's it. File:The sun (color modified).jpg, in the "author" line, lists User:Lykaestria as the original author. Unless someone else contributed to this file (the image itself, not the description page), there are no problems with the "color modified" image. Any other derivative works can be repaired fully by adding Lykaestria if needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No action needed. You don't need to undelete files "to preserve attribution", you just need to credit the original authors in the file description of the derivative work. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've undeleted it. The attribution doesn't matter, the fact that it's not speedy deleteable does. —Cryptic 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And now the commons file has been undeleted. Around we go ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that we can see the history on Commons, the deletion wasn't entirely bizarre - the image had been overwritten several times, and its source changed to an external site of a different image (likely one of the overwrites) which didn't display appropriate licensing. It seems to be stable over there now (see c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-09#File:The sun1.jpg), though, so I've respeedied the local version. —Cryptic 18:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]