Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/08/12

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q9424164

Q9424164: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item falls under what not to include on Wikidata per Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria. This item represents an individual daily discussion subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Ladsgroup (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q31324199

Q31324199: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item falls under what not to include on Wikidata per Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria as a talk page archive subpage. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Ladsgroup (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q22678861

Q22678861: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item Fullerene (msg) 21:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Ladsgroup (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Spam network

Set of related item, linking only to each other. Likely spam. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. One had a sitelink at enwiki once, but it was found to be promotional content and thus deleted (link). None of them had serious identifiers. More promotional content might surface at Special:Contributions/Steventxseo. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

For Q20702600 (Dave Munson) I'm not sure, he was interviewed from foxbusiness I have added link just before the item was deleted. --ValterVB (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

… which is promotional content as well. You find such media coverage for almost all small businesses these days, this is simple marketing. I would reconsider this deletion if there was a serious reference about this person, but I only find those “success stories”. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) - Mbch331 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q36121863

Q36121863: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doesn't seem to meet the notability policy Sintakso (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Mbch331 (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Category redirects@ru.wikinews

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172621
Resolved

1482 category redirects of ru.wikinews have now their own WD items. No other sitelinks are connected to these items, so they can be deleted. --XXN, 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If I don’t miss anything, those “category redirects” actually aren’t redirects technically. They use ru:n:Template:Category redirect and there is no mechanism included which sets the redirect flag in the database.
Thus, if we now delete the items, the next bot will come and import them again. So can somebody please fix this at ruwikinews first, or should we decline this request directly?
We had a very similar case recently with some Chinese wiki (maybe zhwiki?! can't remember exactly).
Special:Nuke might be difficult here, since the nominated items where created together with valid items. See [1] and earlier. Perhaps the adminbot could to this, otherwise some admin would have to spent a lot of time.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WD:NEC soft redirects or category redirects are not allowed as sitelinks in WD items.

The bots can be configured properly to not create items for such pages. Petscan also could exclude such categories.

As an alternative to the adminbot, there is a script for mass deletions -> en:User:Animum/massdelete.js (I suppose it should work fine with item pages as well). --XXN, 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that we don’t allow category redirect items, but this is not the point. I am not sure whether bot operators can identify those sitelinks as category redirects. I am not that experienced yet, but I would look for page.page_is_redirect=1, and these pages have values 0. What else could be done? —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Those who are using Pywikibot can check with page.isCategoryRedirect() if the current category is a category redirect or not. Alternative solution would be: from Template:Category redirect (Q5828850) try find a sitelink for the current wiki (template for tagging category redirects) and if found get all template redirects and then check if the page is tagged with such a template or not :) XXN, 22:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be surprised if page.isCategoryRedirect() returns false for these pages. We cannot expect bot operators to check for all kinds of pseudo redirects (pages that claim to be a redirect, but technically non-redirects) via obscure templates. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I don't find this as a reason to keep a bunch of items which are considered unacceptable here. In Pywikibot this gap was fixed and at least a part of bots will not cause such issues further. We can request also a new magic word for category redirects, and this will make it more easier the process of detecting and excluding category redirects for everyone. Across phabricator this idea was mentioned in few places, but nobody yet created a ticket for it. --XXN, 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not close this as “not done”. There is a lot of work to delete all the items, and I want to avoid that we have to do it again in a few days. Can you briefly explain how your fix should work? I have tried to test this with the latest version of pywikibot (commit 6e1b3f9c2f15 from Aug 9, 2017) and it still says that these categories are not redirects. To my understanding it tests for templates that make category redirects, but I don’t know where the definition of category redirect templates is done. Do you know this? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You are understanding it right. These templates must be defined in family files [and they were missing]. I've submited a patch. XXN, 21:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Patch merged. PWB should detect now these category redirects. XXN, 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks for your efforts, this looks indeed good now. @Ladsgroup: since there are almost 1500 items affected, can Dexbot do this? —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. Let me get the list. Amir (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Amir (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Done Amir (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Dexbot (talk • contribs • logs) - Mbch331 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q35986646

Doesn't meet the notability policy, performing at Wikimania isn't a notability criterium. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose 🙁

Oppose And Sjoerddebruin should stop stalking my edits like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I don't see why is notable. I haven't found info about them. --ValterVB (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Failure on your part is not a criterion for deletion: [2], [3]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And the reason is? --ValterVB (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Q36180741

Q36180741: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Nearly empty item, no incoming links --Laboramus (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by AmaryllisGardener (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)