Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions

Active discussions


User:Vojtěch Dostál made a batch deletion request which swallowed up all of the requests below. Can someone fix this? Thanks. Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 19:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prahlad Hello, isn't this because the page is too long and MediaWiki is unable to cope? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict] This happened about a week ago. It seems to be because we are reaching the size limit of the page. What they did last time was to move a bulk nomination to a separate page. But here we are again because of the backlog. Quakewoody (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál, Quakewoody: What do you suggest then? Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 19:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Specifically, what separate page? Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, the only way to fix this is to process a lot of RFDs, so they can be archived :-). Other way could be to have more than one RFD page, which would need consensus, I presume. MediaWiki has its limits :/. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Martin Urbanec: thanks for the advice. @Vojtěch Dostál: sorry for blaming you. Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 19:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  Fixed, sorry for the trouble. Regards, Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 00:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 00:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting this process into speedy deletions and deletion discussions?Edit

Hi all. Since becoming an admin, I've been watching this page and deleting items when I've felt comfortable that their deletion is per policy. For some items, it's obvious that they can be deleted immediately, but for others (particularly "notability?" items) it seems like it would be better to allow time for a short discussion before they are deleted. However, at the moment they are all mixed together. So I'm wondering: would it be worth splitting this process into a 'speedy' process for the obvious items, and a 'discussion' process that allows for a day or so of discussion at least before deletion? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You did not outline here how this would improve the deletion workflow, or which actual problem you want to solve with the proposal.
  • If you do not feel comfortable to solve a case, you can either leave it for other admins, or request input by other community members to trigger a discussion, or participate in non-admin role by improving the item or adding background to the discussion. In the current scheme, a discussion will usually develop automatically in case it is needed.
  • "Notability" cases are rather simple, as it requires a pretty schematic evaluation on a technical level.
  • Some cases sit here because something needs to be solved elsewhere without requiring any "discussion" here at Wikidata.
  • Any sort of splitted venues would also bring up the question whether an item belongs into this one category or that other category. From my experience, users would probably put quite a substantial fraction into the wrong category and we had to rearrange or work with the mess.
IMO it would not help if we were to split this venue, but it would create a lot of procedural problems instead. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: "If you do not feel comfortable to solve a case, you can either leave it for other admins" - this is what I normally do. I could probably also comment more on the other cases, but when I do, like at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q83609870, it seems to stall things. I think splitting the process would help speed up the obvious deletions, while also providing a bit of breathing room for people to contest other deletions, but still with a timeframe that they will be closed after. The structure of Wikidata makes it difficult to tell whether items are being continuously recreated, but a bit of discussion time might at least reduce that. 'Speedy' and 'Discussion' are the normal approaches that other wikis use to handle items for deletion (sometimes with 'Proposed' in the middle), with good reason, and with your last point, it should be easy to go from speedy to discussion, but not so much the other way around. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, other projects have y very different sort of content, much more complex notability policies, and substantially fewer cases to process. Their deletion schemes would not fit to our project.
  • You can challenge a deletion at any time even after it has taken place. The undeletion procedure is as unbureaucratic as the deletion procedure.
  • Your proposal has the potential that way too many cases land in the "discussion" section and we'd never be able to process those as it is a pretty inefficient procedure. We need to become more efficient, not less efficient.
  • Fixed timeframes do not help to solve a case if the discussion is stalled. We would accumulate the same backlog as we do currently.
  • A reasonable number of seemingly stalled cases can in fact be solved rather quickly based on the provided input. It just needs an admin with some time to close those cases, but we are unfortunately pretty short on active admins.
  • Another slightly related issue to keep in mind is that per current policies there is no discussion or listing on WD:RfD required at all prior a (potential) deletion, and the majority of deletions actually takes place without such a listing. The main purpose of this WD:RfD page is to bring items to admins' attention, not to trigger a discussion.
MisterSynergy (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A lighter weight speedy delete system would be good. I feel too many things are deleted but half the things here are just totally blank items or other garbage. The only borderline cases surround the notability concerns. Also, I still think we need to notify creators when their items are listed. Admins just leaving items they are uncertain of just biases towards deletionism as the admin most willing to delete will eventually come around. The current process is broken. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Creators do get notfied if one uses the gadget.--- Jura 06:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oddly, the other day I got a nomination closed with the explanation that it should have been discussed first (full details). ;) --- Jura 06:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hello, The more time the admin spends on this page, the more its efficiency and speed increase. For Wikipedia, the article can claim a debate over its deletion because WD is different on content. It is true that WD:N is difficult to assimilate to newcomers, but once understood, these recommendations are easily applicable. And this is where the term "obvious deletions" is not defensible: the recommendations are refined over time and the Items can be judged quickly (normally). The only serious discussions that appear are "jurisprudence", as for the Emmet family and the need to welcome all or part of the genealogy (or more simply: is it relevant to welcome families going back to Mathusalem?). By following the recommendations, it is clear that all related items should be kept, but… So a debate page would add to the confusion contrary to what you think. The weak point is the number of active admins and I already wrote that. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • "these recommendations are easily applicable" disagree. there is tons of disagreement about what counts as "structural need" or a "serious and publicly available reference". The problem is the process doesn't exist to let people properly challenge/dispute deletion requests and so much of it happens with zero oversight. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Spoiler Alert - all requests for deletions are requests for speedy deletions. There is no discussion needed. An item either passes or it doesn't. There is no "consensus" for keep/delete. And, what few know - daily deletions outnumber daily request for deletions 1000 to 1. Wikidata RfD is not a discussion page, it is simply a notification for admin to look at something that may have slipped under their radar.
Sure, I would like to see some things (such as known spammers) deleted faster than others. But considering how fast things get deleted in comparison to other projects, I'm good with it. If you really want to fix deletions, then we need a way to prevent people from removing the listings, and keeping non-admin from adding 'done' templates. Particularly since the 'undo' process is useless unless you are sitting on top of the page when the edit happens. If someone removed a listing, let's say overnight, the only way to get get it re-listed is to re-nominate it. Quakewoody (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • "There is no discussion needed. An item either passes or it doesn't. There is no "consensus" for keep/delete". maybe true but that's not good. basically gives admins all the power. BrokenSegue (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikidata isn't freeform writing the way Wikipedia is. You fill out a form on WD. Therefore, this is either pass or fail. Admin should have all the power. Quakewoody (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Quakewoody: Your comments here scare me, I don't think this should just be a notification system, and if the 1000:1 ratio you mention is accurate then I'm very worried that many good items are being deleted without any sort of checking system. Mike Peel (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Or is it scary because of the amount of spam that gets posted. A more accurate figure would be - the deletion log shows just shy of 500 items were deleted in the past 24 hours. But how many were nominated first? And how many don't appear on the deletion log? In comparison, there were just over 100 edits (edits, not individual item nominations) in the same 24 hour period.
IMO, it is a very simple pass/fail situation. Wikidata is 'authored' information. The form is already created, you either fill out enough data to pass notability or you don't. Pass. Fail. Quakewoody (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Quakewoody: If it were that simple we could write a bot to delete things and clearly we cannot. There is a level of judgement here which is being used. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The ratio is not 1000:1, but it is true that the majority of deletions does not see WD:RfD at all. Here are some deletion statistics on a monthly basis. Around 1.45 million items have been deleted in total (~120.000 this year only), and currently the number of deletions per month is roughly 14.000 (or ~500 per day). There would be much more content which would require a notability assessment each day, but we are far away from being able to deal with all of it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Strong support - It is clearly an issue that admins interpretes notability policy differently. For example, "described using serious and publicly available references" - what is the meaning of "describe"? And also the undeletion procedure is not efficient.--GZWDer (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Further what does "serious" mean. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Item marked as deleted although it is notEdit

See this edit:

mobile device (Q491359) has been marked as deleted, but it still exists. Its version history does not show any change. What happened? -- H005 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • The log shows it was deleted, then restored. Quakewoody (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I don't think the restoration makes sense. Where is the suitable place to debate this? Request a deletion again ans ask the user to join the discussion? -- H005 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would think a merge would be better. Or maybe a lexeme. But, talk to the guy that restored it. Maybe he may have a solution (or a link to a discussion). Quakewoody (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Requests for deletions".