Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/10/10

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

Q24961796

parental responsibility (Q24961796): rights and privileges pertaining to parents and children: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merged with Q4375005 Littledogboy (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by علاء, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Q28692533

business administration (Q28692533): administration of a profit-oriented enterprise: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The contents completely overlapped with "business administration" (Q2043282), there is no use any longer. --モアリップ (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by MisterSynergy, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q28914245

Christian Walker (Q28914245): American photographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The only perhaps distinguishing statement is the catalog (P972) one and it is a double misuse of the property that should only be used as a qualifier and take catalogues as values. @GerardM: as creator of the item. Marsupium (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It might be http://vocab.getty.edu/ulan/500334994. But Christian Walker (Q28914245) does not seem to be clearly identifiable … --Marsupium (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The use of catalog has been suggested in the past. It works well for multiple catalogs. The notion that some think it should be different is not here nor there it is a separate dicussion. This person has been identified by the other organisation as being of relevance and consequently he is notable. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how Black Lunch Table (Q28781198), an Wikiproject, can be a catalog. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The source of the list to check if all all the people with catalog (P972)=Black Lunch Table (Q28781198) are correct, is available? --ValterVB (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing new here. It has been mentioned repeatedly and it is the result from a suggestion made at the time. The point of Wikidata is that it is useful and in this way project management is possible for Wikipedia in multiple languages. It is also used by multiple projects including a GLAM project about South American art. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done extended the item. There is also somehow strucutural need given as the item is linked from Wikipedia. --Pasleim (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q17151521

affinity (Q17151521): kinship created as a result of someone's marriage with blood relatives of the other spouse: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merged with Q954007 Littledogboy (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by Pasleim, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q34352885

Hovås Oxsjöväg (Q34352885): road in Gothenburg, Sweden: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. All the road/street are notable only because they exist? ValterVB (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vesihiisi: you have created a lot of these items. --ValterVB (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that all roads which can be clearly identified with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or coordinate location (P625) do meet our notability criteria. --Pasleim (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Existence is not a criterion, all the living or dead persons can have a item? What is the difference? --ValterVB (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's supposed that a reference may be added.--GZWDer (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

What kind of reference can support the notability of a street? In this case is a simple street and there are thousands of items like this. They are in Wikidata only because they exist or they existed (perhaps). --ValterVB (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep of course all streets are notable because of point 2 of Wikidata:Notability. All streets are clearly identifiable conceptual or material entities and could be described by serious and publicly available references. There's no need for a refernece to support a notability, it must only describe the street. --Balû (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"can be described using serious and publicly available references", wich kind of reference you think is suitable in this case? --ValterVB (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: in developed countries - recent street signs. In other countries is much difficult indeed, but shouldn't remove item without clear understanding as incorrect and impossible. d1g (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I miss something in you answer, but the question is "wich kind of reference is suitable in this case?" I don't think that the existence it's enough. --ValterVB (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There are official documents like street directories, there are tourist guides, special books which describes street names in communities and also maps and atlases, which all are serious and publicly available references. --Balû (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

structural need in streets Each street is important to get list of streets. d1g (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

To meet the third criterion: "It fulfills some structural need..." the item must be linked, it isn't this case. --ValterVB (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: it is?

⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ road (Q34442)  

 ⟩

⟨ subject ⟩ located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) ⟨ Gothenburg Municipality (Q52502)  

 ⟩

d1g (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think. --ValterVB (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@ValterVB: this is not how "streets" are normally selected, see 2 claims above d1g (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

But it's exactly what Wikidata must do. It's the difference from "collecting list of data" and collecting structured data". If you have only a list of street without other reason to have them, (only because they exist) you have a "street guide". The world have billions of roads and is out of scope to have all the streets of the world in Wikidata. We can have "anonymous" streets only because they are useful to add more info in item already notable (for ex. to complete an address or to specify a border of a quartier of a city). The mission of Wikidata isn't to have all the data of world, but to have all the data of the worl in structured manner. If data aren't structured are useless and a list of street in a city aren't structured it's only a list. --ValterVB (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Even for top counties like US it would be 10000-100000 streets - few counties have such scale.

We have located on street (P669) but we cannot possibly have items for them as values... Clever move? No.

Streets are different in every city even if they have similar names. d1g (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete add just to avoid misunderstandings --ValterVB (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done no consensus for deletion --Pasleim (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q30337049

Q30337049: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. See also Talk:Q30337049 Infovarius (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If the usage in The law of reverse relations between the content and the volume of the concept (Russian) (Q4184865) and Q4184872 is correct, the item is notable. Otherwise it isn't. But in order to judge the proper usage I need to know Russian and that I don't. Mbch331 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler, Infovarius: item can be used but we don't have a good description of it. So it would be very difficult to reason how to apply such item and when to stop.

On contrast, we have some progress with causation properties Wikidata property for causes and effects (Q28746712)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Wikidata_and_causality.pdf

Help:Modeling causes d1g (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

causality (Q179289) (consists of cause (Q2574811)&consequent (Q261155)) - logic (Q8078). Q30337049 - one of manifestation of (P1557). We have some reasoning about how to apply and when to stop the set of "antipodal point (Q505356)" (abstract and concrete (Q18205125), wave–particle duality (Q193068), quality (Q1207505)&quantity (Q309314), cause (Q2574811)&consequent (Q261155), duality (Q735346), etc.)? In the language such process/result ambiguity is expressed by words which are in one case nouns, in the other verbs (in ru, for example, wikt:ru:Категория:Русские слова с суффиксом -ациj. Description: "system from the process and its result. There is no process without its result, nor the result without the process that generates it. Process and result of the process constitute a unified system". potential energy (Q155640) has effect (P1542) process (Q3249551) (of (P642) kinetic energy (Q46276)). potential energy (Q155640) + process (Q3249551) (of (P642) kinetic energy (Q46276)) = Q30337049. Very many philosophers have investigated the topic concerning the process and its result. --Fractaler (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

P31 and P279 cannot replace more than 3 relations

Question is not whatever philosophers were using them, but how they should be modeled in Wikidata or what is the best way of doing it. d1g (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

⟨ process (Q3249551)  

 ⟩ has effect (P1542) ⟨ result (Q2995644)  

 ⟩

(causality (Q179289)).

⟨ process (Q3249551)  

 ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ Q30337049  

 ⟩

and

⟨ result (Q2995644)  

 ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ Q30337049  

 ⟩

. Q30337049 is concept (Q151885) --Fractaler (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep probably we need this item for process (Q3249551) and result (Q2995644) d1g (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done no consensus for deletion --Pasleim (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q25486470

Q25486470: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) no articles exist, the person is non-notable. --Taivo (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by علاء (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q30122004

Q30122004: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No info, no links, wp article deleted Magnus Manske (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by علاء (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Q41792574

two-state quantum system (Q41792574): quantum system that can exist in any quantum superposition of two independent (physically distinguishable) quantum states; quantum systems with two possible states: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There was two-state quantum system (Q243821) --Fractaler (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)