Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P7049
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- On balance the request to delete is weakly supported. Deletion will be delayed by 30 days in case anyone wants to use the data in any way — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AICS Chemical ID (BEING DELETED) (P7049): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Replaced without reusing IDs —SCIdude (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC) @Dhx1:[reply]
In short, the database has been replaced [1] and the new database does not use the old identifiers. Not only do our identifiers now link to the Wayback Machine but, because the database was not really functional for long (few months?), the archived pages do not show anything. --SCIdude (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was tending to agree with deletion on the basis of the Internet Archive and Trove neither having any saved pages from the old online database using the IDs of AICS Chemical ID (BEING DELETED) (P7049). Additionally the example links of [2], [3] and [4] are not saved correctly by the Internet Archive, which seems to think all these example IDs match up with a single chemical in the database. Then I stumbled across [5], which indicates at least some pages were being saved by the Internet Archive correctly up to 2 years prior to AICS Chemical ID (BEING DELETED) (P7049) existing in Wikidata. This property is used over 16,000 times on Wikidata items and who knows how many of these uses does result in an archived page off the old NICNAS inventory website. Given the lack of archiving observed and seemingly invalid archived pages when Internet Archive did make an attempt, I'm tending to Weak support the deletion of AICS Chemical ID (BEING DELETED) (P7049) instead of the usual case of leaving AICS Chemical ID (BEING DELETED) (P7049) in a deprecated state (for the purpose of Internet Archive etc linking). Mix'n'Match seems to contain the full catalogue of previous IDs but what is the point if there is no copy of the original page available? --Dhx1 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated the label, but given the number of uses and the importance of the database, I'm not really convinced by the deletion proposal. If the identifier was used elsewhere than on the website, I think that should be kept. If it wasn't used elsewhere, somehow our description of the identifier has a problem. @99of9: who worked on this mostly. --- Jura 21:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Grrrr... I hate when databases do this. I'm accepting of my wasted efforts, but can't quite bring myself to vote for deletion! MnM will still be there in the unlikely event that we want to restore the data. --99of9 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- this is really sad. we need to get better at archiving these external identifier URLs BrokenSegue (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me that the reason the Wayback Machine only has a fraction of the pages is because they were only online for a few months, not because the links were defect. What does that tell about the creator's intention or the database's quality? Do we really need to keep something alive that had not much time to mature? --SCIdude (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the database has been around for years.
Is it in web.archive.org.au (or is that the same)? --- Jura 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the database has been around for years.
- No objections. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't going to bother creating a new property proposal for the new database https://www.industrialchemicals.gov.au/search-inventory because it seems it could be a waste of time again. The only use it'd theoretically be is determining whether a chemical can be manufactured or imported into Australia. For example, Chlorinated Biphenyls are listed as a restricted class of chemicals at present, but an Internet Archive copy from April 2021 states no restriction. According to [6] and [7], polychlorinated biphenyl (Q211171) substances have been banned from manufacture and import in Australia since the 1970s so this new website in April 2021 appears to have been wrong in a fairly significant way. The database doesn't provide useful information such as the date a chemical was listed as being able to be manufactured and/or imported, or the date it was restricted or banned. As another example, DDT (Q163648) isn't listed at all (which would be expected), meaning it is most likely banned from manufacture or import. However, more generally, there is no way of knowing for sure what the meaning of a missing chemical is as the register also contains "secret chemicals" that manufacturers or importers may want to hide knowledge of from competitors. --Dhx1 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]