Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P6262
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not done as there is a pretty clear consensus to keep (and I should note is marked as a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320), so that its presence should not be contributing favorably in notability decisions). Mahir256 (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Fandom article ID (P6262): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
As I wrote here, this property relates to a user-generated content website which basically contains largely unreliable, out-of-date and unsourced material. It has no added value for Wikimedia projects and, further, it provides Fandom with a meta-warranty of reliability being linked by a major project like Wikidata. In my opinion it might be safely suppressed and Wikidata can do well without it. — Blackcat 
19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- (I had seen your post on Property_talk:P6262#Deletion_proposal and was planning to answer ; I think you could have waited for an answer before starting this deletion process)
- I fail to see the issue here. There are plenty of external identifier properties pointing to user-generated content websites. I really don’t see how us having this property « provides Fandom with a meta-warranty of reliability ».
- (In my book, having this property on the contrary can allow us to say « There you will find all the cruft that we don’t want on Wikipedia ».) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- (if anyone else wonders − there are currently ~124,000 uses of that property) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Did you really nominate an entire property for deletion because of this edit? That removal should be reverted. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Xezbeth: Not only that, but yes, that's a typical example of inaccurate and unreliable content. When I think to a Wikidata property for IDs, I think to structured data such ESPN Scrum, Olympics.org and so on that have a background of serious work of data collecting and are almost always (absent inevitable mistakes that alas, happen) reliable information. Hope that makes sense -- Blackcat
23:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Xezbeth: Not only that, but yes, that's a typical example of inaccurate and unreliable content. When I think to a Wikidata property for IDs, I think to structured data such ESPN Scrum, Olympics.org and so on that have a background of serious work of data collecting and are almost always (absent inevitable mistakes that alas, happen) reliable information. Hope that makes sense -- Blackcat
- Keep. A large amount of identifiers are user-generated websites, including 97 other Wikidata property linking to articles in MediaWiki websites (Q123667996). Wikidata isn't using this information as a source or stating that it's valid information, but just simply saying that it's an identifier that exists. The only similar deletion request that I've heard of being successful is Boobpedia article but that was majorly on the fact "this particular website can be used to publish intimate information about people without their consent, which poses a high risk". --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep some fandom wikis are unfortunatly the most precise and most up-to-date resource on their subject –Shisma (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per Lewis Hulbert. We're not a Wikipedia. A property link from here is not intended to validate that the target is a Reliable Source, just that the subject of the target matches an item here, for the reader to make of it what they will -- or to even use the link to here and any further cross references from here to improve that external article. It is of use for us to be an index, in itself. Jheald (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep while it may be good (and maybe even preferable), there is no need for an identifier to be reliable (all the identifier linking to social media aren't for instance), the main goal (and only one?) is to identify. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep While I personally don't like fandom for its advertising and its behavior to wikis that try to leave it (this video is a good overview), this property (and Fandom wiki ID (P4073)) are still useful as identifiers. Using it as a reference (or the sole reference) for a claim seems worse but there are probably situations where it's OK. --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep If we follow the logic given for dropping this property to its natural conclusions we'd need to drop properties like X post ID (P5933), Archive of Our Own tag (P8419), and Know Your Meme ID (P6760). Look through the uses of this and similar properties and you'll see plenty of reason for this property to exist, because they reflect the reality of the items they're used on. There are important and notable pages on Fandom, and to accurately describe many items we need to be able to link to them using this property. Moving forward with this proposal would be an act of cutting off the nose to spite the face (Q5197003). Keplersj (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
