The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn with the agreement of everyone initially supporting deletion. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of dams in Fukui Prefecture[edit]

List of dams in Fukui Prefecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates Wikipedia:Wikidata#Appropriate usage in articles, "Wikidata should not be linked to within the body of the article except in the manner of hidden comment(s) as to mentioning the Q-number." This list is nothing but a series of Wikidata links, not meaningfully editable here, and resulting in meaningless refs like "GEOnet Names Server, Wikidata Q1194038". A move to draft to give the article creator the chance to turn it into an acceptable list was reverted. Substituting the individual rows gives no useful results at first sight either. Fram (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Japan. Fram (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep for the following reasons:
  1. The only links to Wikidata are the small pencil marks which are widely used across Wikipedia and do not violate the suggestion in the linked page (which has no standing in policy anyway).
  2. By moving to draft space you have broken the many links from List of dams in Japan.
  3. Splitting this article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Dams articles. I have informed participants there.
  4. The tabular list is much more useful than the bare list it replaced — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So a RfC result has "no standing in policy"? That's rich. "The only links to Wikidata", the article is not editable here as the actual contents are Wikidata links".

  Splitting the article is completely irrelevant here, as is the "but the end result is useful". The end does not justify the means, and in this case the means are not allowed per RfC. It should be a list with enwiki-based contents, fully editable here, not some static version of a Listeria list. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "the small pencil marks which are widely used across Wikipedia" in infoboxes, where they are allowed, not anywhere else, where they are not allowed. Fram (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women linguists/Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Re-examination of ListeriaBot; the fact that the list is generated dynamically through Lua rather than by a bot running a SPARQL query does not improve on the concerns that lead ListeriaBot to be disabled in mainspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep Now that I've converted the list into a non-Wikidata list. The point made below about this really not being a deletion discussion for an article is valid. I suggest anyone who wishes to pursue the original focus of this discussion further bring Module:Wikidata table up at TfD * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To get an idea of the reasons why these are not allowed: apart from the two AfDs and the RfC linked by Pppery, one can look e.g. at the current state of List of Welsh mathematicians, also turned into a Wikidata list by (or with the help of) the same editor. It has things like died: "18 Jul 1807[3] Edgware Road" (which is, as the name indicates, a road, not an actual village or city), and on the other hand died "1558[27][24] London Borough of Southwark" (the Borough was created in 1965, so rather an anachronistic view here). Same person was born in "1512, 1510". Such lists way too often create a mess, which then has to be solved offwiki, which doesn't appear in the page history and so on... Fram (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Someone can die on Edgware Road, so not sure the what issue is there. I will check the London Borough of Southwark one. When two dates are listed it is usually because sources disagree. But I think this is a discussion for Talk:List of Welsh mathematicians? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete per above and WP:TNT. A list makes some sense, but this isn't the way to do it. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and thanks to @Pppery: for the rewrite. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just to correct some of the misunderstandings above. This has nothing whatsoever to do with User:ListeriaBot so any rationales based on that should be revisisted. This is very much a dynamic list and can be fully edited (both by editing data on Wikidata or overriding columns on Wikipedia). Happy to show you how, if you would like to know — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep a reasonable list, and it seems that the main point of contention is solely the Wikidata links (I get that, I personally think Wikidata should be outright banned on Wikipedia but I'm not winning that fight.) However the article can be converted into a non-Wikidata article with reasonable ease, and AfD is not cleanup. The question should be is the topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I think so. Can it be cleaned to be a suitable article? Yes. Canterbury Tail talk 22:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I am not a big fan of Wikidata, but this seems like a content issue rather than a deletion issue. This a daughter article of List of dams in Japan, so even in the worst case, the names would be merged back there and the title would be redirected. The idea of the list itself seems unproblematic to me. Dekimasuよ! 03:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The parent article List of dams in Japan is very very long so seems to be a reasonable WP:SIZESPLIT (though noting Japanese wiki splits it based off the 8 regions, but this is discussion for another time). While reposting Wikidata content isn't exactly optimal, its not that consuming timewise that this requires TNT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep reasonable list topic which nobody is objecting to, if the use of Wikidata content is that problematic then it can be easily turned into another format. I don't see a problem which requires deletion here. Hut 8.5 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, the problem was the article creator who objected and suggested I took it to AfD instead. Fram (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Withdraw as the original reason for the dispute is no longer there (assuming the article creator doesn't revert, but even then other means to pursue this may be better) And @Pppery: thank you. Fram (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.