Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2018/12/02
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Q59341111: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Sorry, empty page, my failer Karmela (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request:Wrong messages
2001:F40:901:FC82:A096:3587:84FE:359E created wrong messages.Please delete them collectively.Thanks --David (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Q57748957: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable? Jc86035 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Other items by this user might also not be notable (criterion 2 needs independent secondary sources). Commons' structured data would be useful for the pictures, though. Jc86035 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: What if I create an item called "vandalism in Trento" and put in item Q57748957 and all the others a property that connects to "vandalism in Trento"? Then I would connect with a property the item for the city "Trento" to the item "vandalism in Trento". This way criterion 3 would be met properly, because this would make Trento Q3376 - which already meets the criteria - more meaningful. Thus the items I created would comply with the notability policy. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I have many more pictures coming :) GiordanoArman (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @GiordanoArman: Maybe, but it just seems like the wrong sort of thing to put in Wikidata to me. Imagine if I were to do the same with a million blades of grass: yes, the letter of the notability policy might technically allow it depending on how criterion 3 is interpreted, but the spirit wouldn't. I think right now, without structured data (imagine a Wikidata item for every file on Commons), you would be better off adding these to OpenStreetMap (Q936), with the tag artwork_type=graffiti and a link to the Commons image using wikimedia_commons=*. Jc86035 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Thanks, I think there a problem though, defining art those scribbles on OpenStreetMap would be misleading... also because "artwork_type" requires the "tourism" flag, which I think would not be appropriate, those scribbles are definitely not something tourists want to see. My goal is to keep a record of the location and timeline of graffiti and other vandalic acts, in order to be able to observe useful information in the future. If I were a biologist I might be interested in big collections of grass pictures from a certain region, if I could extract valid information through artificial intelligence, for example... so maybe a sociologist might be interested in this kind of data. --GiordanoArman (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @GiordanoArman: If it's not suitable for OSM I still think you should wait until Commons structured data comes out in a few months to a year. For now it's still possible to store the data on Commons. Jc86035 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree, Commons:Structured data seems to be a better place for that, even though it needs some time still. --Marsupium (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jc86035: Thanks, I think there a problem though, defining art those scribbles on OpenStreetMap would be misleading... also because "artwork_type" requires the "tourism" flag, which I think would not be appropriate, those scribbles are definitely not something tourists want to see. My goal is to keep a record of the location and timeline of graffiti and other vandalic acts, in order to be able to observe useful information in the future. If I were a biologist I might be interested in big collections of grass pictures from a certain region, if I could extract valid information through artificial intelligence, for example... so maybe a sociologist might be interested in this kind of data. --GiordanoArman (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Multichill (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)