Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2020/07/02
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Q96613434: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability Quakewoody (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: Empty items
| Batch 1 |
|---|
|
| Batch 2 |
|---|
|
| Batch 3 |
|---|
|
| Batch 4 |
|---|
|
Empty items. Minorax (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Done Mahir256 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Revert all Indian bank branch entries created by Atudu
A user, Atudu (talk • contribs • logs), seems to have created upwards of a hundred thousand entries for Indian bank branches. A good majority only have two statements and others have 5 , but they only reference the main bank and an Indian Financial System Code. None of them seem notable. Even the ones with an Indian Financial System code, but especially the entries that don't have one. They don't seem to enhance the database at all either. Its extremely questionable that every branch for every bank in India would be notable or need it's own entry. Even if they have a Indian Financial System Code. Or that they are even being used anywhere. For one example search for Union Bank of India. It has entries for around 3,600 branches. Maybe that would be a good place to start. Outside of that, I'm not really sure how to approach this given the large amount of entries. As it would be impossible to list and delete them all individually. Maybe there could be an edit revert for the user within a certain time period or something. Since it looks like they create entries for a specific topic in blocks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - all items have valid external identifier, hence notable as per Wikidata notability policy. - Bodhisattwa (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The ones with only two statements don't have an external identifier. Should I do them separately or something instead? It would be a massive pain to sort through them to weed out ones that don't have an external identifier, since it's like fifty thousand, but maybe I can figure out a way to make it easier or something. Deleting the ones that don't have one would still a massive improvement IMO. Plus, I'd like to know where an external identifier automatically makes something notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, you know most every bank in the world has an external identifier with the routing number right? There's another unique identifier I can't remember the name of right now also. Both are semi-meaningless IMO. Especially for notability and in absence of other things to establish it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The items with only two statements are the subclass of bank branches and they are not fifty thousand, they are only 113 in number. What I can do to help is to add more statements in these items, but as these are general items, not much can be done for these 113 items. The individual branches have these items as P31, so they are also linked with each other. The individual branches have Indian Financial System Code (P4635) as external identifiers. Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is a valid and serious external identifier, used by the entire banking sector of India to identify bank, hence it fulfills the Criterion 2 of Notability policy. The coordinates of these individual branches are missing though, but what I have learned from other editors, that the process of adding the coordinates is underway, so when that is done, they can be used in the maps easily. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- It seemed like more then that. Still though, if they just exist to display on a map there are other projects like OpenStreetMap that are made for that and would be a better place for the information. The purpose of Wikidata is to be a linked database, not a map. Plus, the entries have been in Wikidata for a few years now, none of them have coordinates anyway, and I doubt they ever will. Even if they did have coordinates though, Per notability guidelines "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where exactly are those references? Or should we ignore the need for them just so the entries display on a map? Also, them referencing each other doesn't work for nobility IMO. Otherwise, it's circular notability, like saying while A and B aren't notable on their own, but A+B is. That's not how notability works. Especially in absence of serious references. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say that the only use of the data is to display them on maps, please dont twist my language. I said, people are working on the coordinates and trying to enrich the items and one of the use is to display them on maps. There may be other uses too, I just cited one. The sole purpose of Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is to link Indian bank branches. If you think, all these bank branch items should be deleted, then there is no purpose for Indian Financial System Code (P4635) to exist and you have to delete the property itself, and so will all the external identifiers which are used as a single identifier in any items. I guess, enriching those items will be far more productive than this discussion, if they lack some data. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say you did, but that's what you said they were going to use it for and like I said below a hypothetical of what something could be used for isn't useful IMO. Especially when you haven't said what it is. Otherwise it's just circular reasoning. Really though, your the one twisting my language by falsely inferring that I think Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is worthless and should be gotten rid of, just because I don't think these entries are notable. It's kind of a ridiculous argument to make and shows your clearly not being fair about this. You know the general usage of Indian Financial System Code (P4635) has nothing to do with it and neither does other single identifier entries. I've said several times it's the lack of anything else with it, there's entries that don't have the identifier anyway, and I don't have to do a deletion request for every damn problem out there to do this one. So, stick to the subject instead of trying to deflect to worthless whataboutisms. Btw, where do the notability guidelines something only needs a single external identifier to be notable? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't say that the only use of the data is to display them on maps, please dont twist my language. I said, people are working on the coordinates and trying to enrich the items and one of the use is to display them on maps. There may be other uses too, I just cited one. The sole purpose of Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is to link Indian bank branches. If you think, all these bank branch items should be deleted, then there is no purpose for Indian Financial System Code (P4635) to exist and you have to delete the property itself, and so will all the external identifiers which are used as a single identifier in any items. I guess, enriching those items will be far more productive than this discussion, if they lack some data. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It seemed like more then that. Still though, if they just exist to display on a map there are other projects like OpenStreetMap that are made for that and would be a better place for the information. The purpose of Wikidata is to be a linked database, not a map. Plus, the entries have been in Wikidata for a few years now, none of them have coordinates anyway, and I doubt they ever will. Even if they did have coordinates though, Per notability guidelines "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where exactly are those references? Or should we ignore the need for them just so the entries display on a map? Also, them referencing each other doesn't work for nobility IMO. Otherwise, it's circular notability, like saying while A and B aren't notable on their own, but A+B is. That's not how notability works. Especially in absence of serious references. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The items with only two statements are the subclass of bank branches and they are not fifty thousand, they are only 113 in number. What I can do to help is to add more statements in these items, but as these are general items, not much can be done for these 113 items. The individual branches have these items as P31, so they are also linked with each other. The individual branches have Indian Financial System Code (P4635) as external identifiers. Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is a valid and serious external identifier, used by the entire banking sector of India to identify bank, hence it fulfills the Criterion 2 of Notability policy. The coordinates of these individual branches are missing though, but what I have learned from other editors, that the process of adding the coordinates is underway, so when that is done, they can be used in the maps easily. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, you know most every bank in the world has an external identifier with the routing number right? There's another unique identifier I can't remember the name of right now also. Both are semi-meaningless IMO. Especially for notability and in absence of other things to establish it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The ones with only two statements don't have an external identifier. Should I do them separately or something instead? It would be a massive pain to sort through them to weed out ones that don't have an external identifier, since it's like fifty thousand, but maybe I can figure out a way to make it easier or something. Deleting the ones that don't have one would still a massive improvement IMO. Plus, I'd like to know where an external identifier automatically makes something notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Keep no valid reason for deletion, seems to be clearly inside the rules of Wikidata (WD:N). The lack of data is a call for improvment not for deletion. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- To cite WD:N "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where are the serious references to make these notable? A single identifier is not "references." You could use the same excuse of how something should be improved instead of deleting it for almost anything. The question is if there is actually something that meets the standard of serious references to improve it with. Which these don't have. Even the comment by Bodhisattwa confirms the only reason they were put in Wikidata is so they display on a map. Which is an extremely weak reason to keep them and has nothing to do with their notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant, see my comment above. Please dont infer something which I didnt say or intend to say. Also, yes, according to WD:N, one serious external identifier is enough to prove notability on Wikidata. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not inferring anything. That's what you said they were using it for. That's not to say there not be another use case, but it's the specific one you mentioned. Everything could potentially be used for something. I don't really care about hypothetical use cases. Especially non-existent ones.
- Adamant, see my comment above. Please dont infer something which I didnt say or intend to say. Also, yes, according to WD:N, one serious external identifier is enough to prove notability on Wikidata. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- To cite WD:N "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where are the serious references to make these notable? A single identifier is not "references." You could use the same excuse of how something should be improved instead of deleting it for almost anything. The question is if there is actually something that meets the standard of serious references to improve it with. Which these don't have. Even the comment by Bodhisattwa confirms the only reason they were put in Wikidata is so they display on a map. Which is an extremely weak reason to keep them and has nothing to do with their notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Info I am willing to have a look at the case from an admin perspective, however in the current shape this request is not workable. Can you please list affected items explicitly (either by listing them here if not too many, or via a query, or a link to Special:Contributions/Atudu)? I would otherwise have to close this discussion as "not done". Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: This request, as the tone of the requestor would seem to indicate, would appear to extend to every item for which the only external identifier present is an Indian Financial System Code (P4635) (and the user named in this deletion request is not the only creator of such items). As such something as simple as would be sufficient to identify all items that the requestor is targeting here. Mahir256 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Try it!
SELECT ?i { ?i wdt:P4635 [] }
- As I said above, the deletion request includes ones where there isn't an external identifier, of which there are many. Unfortunately the query provided by Mahir256 leaves them out and I'm not sure how to do one without the identifier, that would get the banks that don't include one. The query with it is still useful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The query lists *only* items with identifiers, since this is the only search criterium of that query. If you have troubles to list all of the items, can you please provide some three to five examples here? I would then try to figure out more… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above, the deletion request includes ones where there isn't an external identifier, of which there are many. Unfortunately the query provided by Mahir256 leaves them out and I'm not sure how to do one without the identifier, that would get the banks that don't include one. The query with it is still useful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's some examples. Until recently when Bodhisattwa added the country all of them just had two statements, that referenced themselves. None of them have an external identifier.
--Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have explained earlier, there are 113 items which denotes subclass of (P279) bank branch (Q21073937) of different Indian banks. These items are used as instance of (P31) for the individual branches (which Mahir256 has queried). These 113 items are not the individual branches and these will not have any external identifier. If these 113 items are deleted, instance of (P31) of all the individual branches will be gone. This is basic concept of subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31), one does not delete items with subclass of (P279) statements because they does not have external identifiers. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- You should really stop campaigning and let MisterSynergy look into it like they said they would. Commenting on everything is utterly worthless. Like you said, you've already gave your opinion a couple of times. So everyone knows what it is at this point and it doesn't add anything to keep repeating it. Just because they are a subclass of something isn't relevant anyway. As being a subclass doesn't automatically make something notable. Plus, the label says City Union Bank Limited branch and it's a part of City Union Bank Limited etc etc. So, that sounds like a "branch" to me. At least as far as it not needing an entry goes IMO. Your just arguing semantics. I never said anything about external identifiers having to do with it originally. Your the one that brought it up and you keep talking in circles about it. If something is worthy of an entry just because it is a subclass, at least MisterSynergy can look into it anyway and figure it out without you giving your personal opinion over and over. So, give it a rest and the let process work itself out please. Especially since you've already said multiple things that were blatantly wrong and clearly have a slant toward keeping the entries whatever the facts are. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was not campaigning, but yeah, you are right, I made my point and I have nothing more to say. I also request you to refrain from personally attacking me, that is not at all needed in these difficult times in which we all are living. Apologies also from my side if I have done something wrong. From now on, I will not discuss anything here. Take care. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The branches are instances of these items, but are they necessary when they can be instances of bank branch (Q21073937), with operator (P137) or part of (P361) (or even brand (P1716) if an operator has more than one brand) to say which bank they are branches of? Peter James (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- You should really stop campaigning and let MisterSynergy look into it like they said they would. Commenting on everything is utterly worthless. Like you said, you've already gave your opinion a couple of times. So everyone knows what it is at this point and it doesn't add anything to keep repeating it. Just because they are a subclass of something isn't relevant anyway. As being a subclass doesn't automatically make something notable. Plus, the label says City Union Bank Limited branch and it's a part of City Union Bank Limited etc etc. So, that sounds like a "branch" to me. At least as far as it not needing an entry goes IMO. Your just arguing semantics. I never said anything about external identifiers having to do with it originally. Your the one that brought it up and you keep talking in circles about it. If something is worthy of an entry just because it is a subclass, at least MisterSynergy can look into it anyway and figure it out without you giving your personal opinion over and over. So, give it a rest and the let process work itself out please. Especially since you've already said multiple things that were blatantly wrong and clearly have a slant toward keeping the entries whatever the facts are. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have explained earlier, there are 113 items which denotes subclass of (P279) bank branch (Q21073937) of different Indian banks. These items are used as instance of (P31) for the individual branches (which Mahir256 has queried). These 113 items are not the individual branches and these will not have any external identifier. If these 113 items are deleted, instance of (P31) of all the individual branches will be gone. This is basic concept of subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31), one does not delete items with subclass of (P279) statements because they does not have external identifiers. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Info: I still plan to look into this, but it is not a request which is particularly easy to process, so please be patient. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think we had a similar proposal at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Handelsregister and the consensus was that Wikidata isn't suitable for this. --- Jura 11:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I thought something like this had came up before and that the consensus then was that this type of information is to granular. I've essentially made the same ones here with the bank branches. It's also worth mentioning that when support for the Indian Financial System Code was added it was with the covet that it would not automatically make every entity that has such an identifier qualify as notable (to quote ArthurPSmith). An extremely good case could be made that it doesn't work for notability for the same reason Handelsregister doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: Are you still planning on looking into this or is it DOA? Would it be better if I just do deletion requests for individual entries in series' of 20 or something instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I lost track a bit due to several other onwiki and offwiki duties these days. I will have a look very soon, and if I need further input, I am going to ping you... ---MisterSynergy (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK. No worries. Things have been kinda crazy all around lately. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I lost track a bit due to several other onwiki and offwiki duties these days. I will have a look very soon, and if I need further input, I am going to ping you... ---MisterSynergy (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @MisterSynergy: Are you still planning on looking into this or is it DOA? Would it be better if I just do deletion requests for individual entries in series' of 20 or something instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I thought something like this had came up before and that the consensus then was that this type of information is to granular. I've essentially made the same ones here with the bank branches. It's also worth mentioning that when support for the Indian Financial System Code was added it was with the covet that it would not automatically make every entity that has such an identifier qualify as notable (to quote ArthurPSmith). An extremely good case could be made that it doesn't work for notability for the same reason Handelsregister doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a bit more complex, thus I will close this with several bullet points:
- Items with instance of (P31): bank branch (Q21073937) (or subclass thereof) and a Indian Financial System Code (P4635) identifier are being considered notable under criterion 2 of WD:N and not deleted (113.236 items per [1]).
- However, there are also 4481 items about Indian bank branches with instance of (P31): bank branch (Q21073937) (or subclass thereof) and no identifiers at all: query. All of them except Bank Of Baroda , Pune Branch (Q89901478) are being linked to an external resource via references, and considered notable.
- Items with subclass of (P279): bank branch (Q21073937) are being considered notable, if they are in use in other items (per structural need). At this point it does not matter whether this is the best data model possible (see comment by User:Peter James above). Per this query, there are currently only two out of 113 subclass items which are not notable due to missing backlinks: Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank branch (Q76448667) and New India Cooperative Bank Limited branch (Q76496210).
- There is also a related worklist at Wikidata:WikiProject India/Banks with IFSC. Thus, I will not delete the very few items found to be "not notable" above, as they can clearly be improved quickly.
In spite of the findings above, I strongly encourage involved users and WikiProjects to import further bank branch items with a dedicated bot account (i.e. requires a bot flag, and an approved bot task via Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot, per User:Jura1's hint to a similar project at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Handelsregister above). The bot account can still use QuickStatements or any other tools then, thus you do not need to write code for a bot framework. However, the number of items of this type is clearly growing to a scale where it is unclear whether Wikidata is in fact the correct project to host this sort of information. While the items are *currently* being considered notable, this may change in the future. I also mention that there are apparently no updates being upstreamed from the original source (i.e. the information outdates here pretty quickly); we also meanwhile face serious scaling issues for Wikidata as a whole, which leads to the conclusion that we definitely cannot host information about all companies/branches/etc. worldwide, and maybe even need to delete some of it in the future.
Ping for involved users: @Adamant1, Atudu; also 
WikiProject India has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. due to the worklist linked above.
Close as 
Not deleted. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- So Indian Financial System Code (P4635) would need to be deleted first? --- Jura 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- The identifiers from items, or the property alltogether? In order to achieve what? I don't get your comment, to be honest… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- The property all together, as you seem to be saying that it's a considered Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability. Also, this may mean we should be much more restrictive on new similar "identifier" properties. --- Jura 08:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it is an identifier for a database that is neither user-generated content, nor under the control of the listed subjects themselves. It actually provides useful information about the listed entities, and makes sure that the items are properly identified so that any random item user can easily learn what the items are about. It would be highly unusual if we deleted these items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's true for most phone books and company registry mentioned earlier. --- Jura 10:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Under the current policy set, this is nevertheless valid content. As I mentioned in the closing comment, this may change due to project-wide scaling issues in the future, and company registers could well be one of the first type of sources to come under pressure then. (Btw. I do not like this sort of content here as well, as I think there are too many unaddressed issues related to it. But I am not here to judge along my personal preferences, so this needs to be kept for now.) —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it can be kept as there is no consensus for its deletion, but beyond that, saying that it's notable because of phone book entries, seems a bit off --- Jura 10:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Correct. Under the current policy set, this is nevertheless valid content. As I mentioned in the closing comment, this may change due to project-wide scaling issues in the future, and company registers could well be one of the first type of sources to come under pressure then. (Btw. I do not like this sort of content here as well, as I think there are too many unaddressed issues related to it. But I am not here to judge along my personal preferences, so this needs to be kept for now.) —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's true for most phone books and company registry mentioned earlier. --- Jura 10:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it is an identifier for a database that is neither user-generated content, nor under the control of the listed subjects themselves. It actually provides useful information about the listed entities, and makes sure that the items are properly identified so that any random item user can easily learn what the items are about. It would be highly unusual if we deleted these items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The property all together, as you seem to be saying that it's a considered Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability. Also, this may mean we should be much more restrictive on new similar "identifier" properties. --- Jura 08:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- The identifiers from items, or the property alltogether? In order to achieve what? I don't get your comment, to be honest… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Research of an Intelligent Sale System of Guilin Rice Noodles Based on SCM (Q70333101): scientific article published in July 2015: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No references, no notability. The image is nominated for deletion in Commons. Taivo (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Not deleted per identifiers —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96678954: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notable? Haansn08 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Brandon Chrisan (Q96739745): American pornographic actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Violation of the private information: even if it's an 'open secret' I am surprised how easily the item creator is disclosing the real name of a recently deceased gay adult actor. Additionaly, I'm not sure if the person was really notable by our criteria: in particular, only 17 scenes within just two years of performing, almost all of them are online episodes, the only feature film he appeared in, is not reviewed by anybody. Wolverène (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Described by Newsweek (Q188413), HuffPost (Q18049522), Gay Star News (Q5528640) as well as being listed on external databases and has muliple external IDs such as on Internet Adult Film Database (Q1052713). Clearly meets WD:N #2. His parents fills a structual need per #3. All "privacy sensitive content" is clearly sourced and referenced from muliple sources in accordance with policy. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- IAFD male performer ID (P4505) does currently not imply notability. Neither do any of the other IDs on this item. --Haansn08 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Notability on Wikidata is different than on Wikipedia. The only factor to determine if a subject is notable per WD:N is that it is a “clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity” which can be “described using serious and publicly available references”. Mainstream news articles act as sources to back up statements and being listed on external databases proves that it is an identifiable material entity. Please point to policy if you wish to delete. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- IAFD male performer ID (P4505) does currently not imply notability. Neither do any of the other IDs on this item. --Haansn08 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT (t) Josve05a (c) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- comment I came here from the LGBT notice. I support following any guideline, and I support anyone proposing a guideline if there needs to be one, but this currently seems like a reflection of published media from mainstream sources. Public information from professional journalism by default acceptable in Wikidata. What else should anyone consider about this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I don't have an opinion on standards for porn actors, but the first result on a search engine (depending on settings) for me is an article from popular (gossip) newspapers like [2] or [3], so it's clear this person had some notability beyond a niche. All the news articles state the real name in the very first line or in the title so the cat is out of the bag and I find it a bit overboard to accuse the creator of privacy violations (that's a serious accusation). By the way, we cannot just assume that someone is bothered by their real name being associated with their screen name (even if it mattered). Nemo 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Deletion due to a lack of notability is fine, IMO. But, the bigger issue, I am getting tired of words like 'privacy' being tossed around. Particularly for entertainers. You can't put your information out there, and then not like that your information is out there. And, I know this isn't the place for this one, but again I would like to point out - as the world be comes more and more digitized, particularly with the automated robo-news that post stories without the same ad space and word count that printed pages of the past needed to worry about, we really need to take a look at, and make adjustments to, "significant coverage' guidelines. Quakewoody (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It seems it passes basic notion of WD:N. But please delete the parents. I don't see any point of keeping those items. Amir (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- How should we record the subjects parent's names? It is data which is sourced. Without their own items, we cannot fully store biographical data about the subject. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Even if we're assuming notability of Kyle Dean (I prefer calling him by porn name), I don't understand why his poor parents should be listed here as well. Strictly speaking they didn't do anything significant except giving Kyle birth. --Wolverène (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete All. No IDs which imply notability, no structural need as a group, no sitelinks. AND it is privacy sensitive content. --Haansn08 (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Deleted the items about the parents, as there is nothing but a mentioning of their names in an obituary available. The item Q96739745 itself is Not deleted. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96376239: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
PL.wiki item was deleted as not-notable (I was a creator of the item, but I was also responsible for requesting the article's deletion). Nadzik (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q95876221: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. – Aranya (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96650329: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Spam, no sources Jklamo (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q43190250: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails WD:N. Local article was deleted over concerns of it actually existing. Hiàn (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96609458: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Empty item. Minorax (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Research of an Intelligent Sale System of Guilin Rice Noodles Based on SCM (Q70333101): scientific article published in July 2015: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No wikilinks, no references, no anything. Taivo (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Taivo (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's an instance of scholarly article (Q13442814); these don't usually have wikilinks. It was published in Dynamical Systems and Control (Q96706838). Peter James (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Not deleted per identifiers —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Q54290541: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Page deleted (redirected) on enwiki. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96749894: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Spam. No sitelinks, internal links, external IDs or references (besides their own website). Kam Solusar (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96627019: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Out of scope. ~Moheen (keep talking) 06:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96678954: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Wiki Scam or Notability --Free2source (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Valmiera FC (Q18011571): Wikimedia category: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Merged into Q55996161 --Cpaolo79 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I merged them the opposite way. Quakewoody (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done, but the merge fixed the issue. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Dale M Needham (Q82176151): researcher, professor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate of Q91455049. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Merged. Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not done, but the merge fixed the issue. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sairam Dave (Q2775008): Humorist, Motivational Speaker, and Educationalist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate Detected - Merge with Q93106770 --Wikilanemak (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done, but Q93106770 was merged into Q2775008, fixing the issue. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Cycn: I actually merged both the items. I didn't comment here because after sometime, DeltaBot ususally comments that the task is done. So, inorder to avoid two {{done}} comments, I didn't reply here. Adithyak1997 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Adithyak1997: - the bots only pick merges up when the nominated Q is being changed into a redirect. When you merge the other way around, the done-bots don't notice it, and so the archiving bots aren't triggered either. That's why I check this page ever one in a while to add not dones to have the archiving bot notice them. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for replying and I will look into it. Adithyak1997 (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Q96376003: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Recreation, fully Advertising, social media promoting and also this parson have same another item that was request for delation but now he did create again this Item. Please Check. (Before Item Q96357565 and this Item Q96376003) both Item is same person. Please soon Check and take action. ComeBacks (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by User:Bovlb, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)