Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/09/26

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

Q41058516

Q41058516: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Try for test; duplicate with Q22670025 --Xihahaha01 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q40489639

Yellow Sticky Notes: Canadian Anijam (Q40489639): 2013 animated film directed by Janet Perlman: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplication of Q8051838 --Peuc (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Have different publication dates (2007 and 2013), different directors, and now also different IMDb IDs. Thus neither merged nor deleted. (For archive bot:

Not deleted) —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q32425138

Category:Organizations by year of disestablishment (Q32425138): Wikimedia category: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item. The Mercenary (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by MisterSynergy, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q41060428

Q41060428: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q41005311

Q41005311: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q41074676

Q41074676: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Accident Magnus Manske (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q30632949

Q30632949: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

All three Wikipedias which had hosted articles about this topic have deleted the article due to lack of independent notability. --Deryck Chan (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Nikosguard (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q41063525

Q41063525: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability criteria Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Nikosguard (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This page in Wikidata namespace only contains a small collection of lists, loosely related to identifiers. A page in Wikidata namespace about external identifiers could be useful, but in its current shape it seems better to delete it for a fresh start. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the page was created by User:Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per Succu. Mahir256 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep given that Tobias's influence is significantly diminished. Mahir256 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ better not to have manually updated copies of special pages and automated lists, especially when they add so little over automated solutions. d1g (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep page was absolutely lacking content, but now it is okay, including "Items about individual identifiers are exceptions and should not be created massively" and "Identifier items in Wikidata are disputed so there is no best practice by now!" d1g (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ It was Tamawashi. --Succu (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment no consensus to classify individual identifiers using items in Wikidata or externally. This is an awkward solution to not a problem. Lexeme and phrases would be supported at much better level, we don't need to focus on P31+P279 solution as we almost have proper solution. d1g (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Judgement about whether a page to be deleted should not depend on who created the page. Anyway, I have started to fully rewrite the page, please have a second look! -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: 2nd and 3rd paragraph are useful, but we could present it at another page. Maybe Help:Authority control or another page from Category:Help d1g (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the page to become part of Category:Help but I don't mind to integrate the content into other pages. There seems to be some confusion what people actually refer to when speaking about identifiers, so a page of its own may be helpful. On the other hand we have Wikidata:Glossary for this purpose. Anyway, please ping me before actual deletion so I can save the content for use elsewhere! -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The actual content might not be a final version, but it does outline some important problems when we talk about “identifiers”: this term does need some disambiguation. However, I also thought that the page in question would be particularly about the second and third aspect (which are related).

In case of a deletion the contents would still be accessible by admins, and I'm sure we can hand it over to you in that case (or move it directly to an appropriate place). However, there is no need to delete if it turns out to be useful once. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please move to User:JakobVoss/Identifiers if there is consensus to delete the page. I further extended the second aspect about "identifier properties". Properties for Authority control are only a subset of these properties. The third aspect is the most controversial. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree the original page here was not terribly useful. I've also requested deletion of the 4 related pages created by the same IP addresses and linked from this page - these were just automatic listeria-generated lists of identifier-related items (not the properties) and I don't believe served any useful purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Could some admin please delete the following pages instead of Wikidata:Identifiers and mark the case as resolved? -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support this resolution from JakobVoss. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who originally requested deletion of Wikidata:Identifiers, I have changed my opinion after this page was substantially improved by Jakob Voss and ArthurPSmith and vote Keep now, but support deletion of the lists nominated by JakobVoss in the preceeding comment. The delete votes by @Mahir256, Succu were made before the page was improved, maybe they want to re-evaluate their position as well. Let’s get this request solved soon. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Please delete the above lists nominated by JakobVoss. --Succu (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Done above lists deleted but keep Wikidata:Identifiers --Pasleim (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Living people (draft)

GerardM has proposed this for deletion, without providing a reason in the template. On Project Chat he stated several things that might be interpreted as reasons, which I will transpose here:

The basic problem has not been resolved and this cannot be found in this proposal. So it is imho a waste of time as it is pushing something that is not viable vis a vis our best practices.
A policy that is unworkable is unreasonable.
delete this goddess and address the issues first. Then we have a way of dealing with BLP that is workable.

However, in my personal view the page is useful even if incomplete, particularly as it provides (a) functional definition of living person items in wikidata, (b) specific lists of properties editors should be careful with for these items, and (c) some recommendations on handling sources and disagreements. While I'm sure it can be improved, and is clearly just a draft policy anyway at the moment, we should Keep it and continue to strive for consensus on these issues. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is premature to publish a draft and thereby give it an officious status when it is fundamentally flawed. The basic premise of a BLP is: What is it there for and how can we, given the medium, have a workable solution. This is Wikipedia imposed policy it is item driven and there is nothing in there that addresses the strenghts of Wikidata to improve the all over BLP quality of all the Wikimedia projects.

So delete this bugger. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep and discuss. - PKM (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Given that the arguments from previous discussions have not been discussed nor found their way in this piece of prose, it has the pretence of something it is not. It is NOT a draft for a policy as it does not fit in with our practices, it does not tie in with methods to improve quality. It is only an imposition. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: Although there is a deletion notice at the top of the page, it says "To contest or discuss this page's deletion, please visit its talk page", and does not link to this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I respect Gerard's comment that this is an incomplete proposal and unworkable as-is, but deleting the proposal does not help the situation. Discuss and bring down the proposal and turned it into {{Historical}} instead so future editors know what not to do. Deryck Chan (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Deletion is not the answer, dialogue is. No rationale has been given for why this page should be deleted. -- Fuzheado (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done consensus to keep --Pasleim (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)