Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ORCID/Items with ORCID identifiers

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

The result of the discussion was:  delete. If there are issues with the bot recreating the page, please re-delete and salt the title. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ORCID/Items with ORCID identifiers

 * – (View MfD)

At 1,223,433 bytes this page is past being useful. The underlying query is available via Wikidata should anyone need it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; we also have Category:Pages with ORCID identifiers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Questions - Are any of them ever instances of anything other than human? Can this list be fed to goats?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems useless and space-wasting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a Bot-only page. It is overwritten repeatedly by User:ListeriaBot.  User:ListeriaBot is controlled by User:Magnus Manske.  Have you contacted him?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of wasting his time in that manner. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is either to break his bot, or is irrelevant if the bot just recreates it, and you think it a waste of his time to tell him? Am I confused?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears so, yes. Not least as neither of your assertions is true. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral as per analysis by User:SmokeyJoe. This page is Write-Only Memory.  If necessary, tag it as such so that humans don't pay attention to it and the bot can play in the dark with it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it does not look write only. Pageviews records show that it has been read ~ 5-15 times every day for the last 90 days.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks likely to have uses not known to the nominator.  The size is unremarkable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Uses such as..? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Show me your efforts to find out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're making the assertion; I'm asking you to back it up, not to set me homework. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * have you notified the stakeholders of this discussion? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are..? Still waiting for your answer to my question: "Uses such as..?" Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * has not edited for months. This appears to be a bit issue.  I don’t see any reason to have a problem with the page per se.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it an issue? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s an issue to have an inactive bot owner running a runaway experimental bot. You’ve identified an issue, deletion of this page may not be the right solution, maybe the bot should be blocked, first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a "runaway" bot. Please don't make false and derogatory pronouncements about the work of fellow editors. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have notified WP:BOTN at Bots/Noticeboard —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not "a Bot’s page". HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a page whose only usual editor is a bot. What is “HTH”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have notified at User talk:ListeriaBot. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a clear delete. --Izno (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Izno. Do you know the bot? Do you propose to WP:Block User:ListeriaBot if it re-creates the page.  User:ListeriaBot does many other edits apart from writing to this page, are you confident that it is not doing anything useful that will not be broken by the deletion of this page?  Did the bot writer break any rule by having the bot write this megabyte of data to this page several times per month?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot is programmed by the content in the "lead" of the page (to wit, the SPARQL query). Remove that and the bot will stop writing to the page. However, if you remove that, there's no reason to keep the page around. --Izno (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Izno. NB, I am SPARQL-0, and will have to just trust you on that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BAG comment - there is concern about this bot being blocked to prevent editing/recreating this page (should the outcome be delete), but the non-blocking solution is just to place nobots on the (otherwise blank) page post-deletion until the botop responds and/or shuts down the process. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or just apply some WP:SALT - it isn't an admin bot. — xaosflux  Talk 19:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Duh. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no way the bot can or would receatae the page if it is deleted. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - Was the task of writing this document an approved task for the bot? I think that we can assume yes, because bots are supposed to be approved.  What was the source of the requirement that was satisfied by the bot?  At the time that the bot was approved, did someone or something (an editor or another bot) have a need for the file?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This may be the wrong forum for Andy to be asking the right question. The right question is what the file is used for.  However, maybe Andy has a hammer, and there is a protruding screw.  Don't hammer on a protruding screw.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no screw protruding, but there is, apparently, one loose. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing Don't hammer on a loose screw. Deletion of the stupid output file doesn't address why the stupid output file is being created and whether there would be a better process for doing whatever is being done.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I addressed your latter point in my nomination, but the "loose screw" analogy did not refer to the bot. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing - If you are referring to some technical issue as the loose screw, please state it, because it isn't obvious. If you are referring to either me or some other editor, then you have managed to engage in a civil personal attack, which is still a personal attack, but which is best ignored.  Don't hammer on a loose screw, human or non-human.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless some technical reason turns up below for why it should be kept. I haven't seen such a reason yet, reading this discussion. The page says at the top, This page mirrors information available on Wikidata about people with an ORCID iD...See also Autolist and wiga for other ways to browse this information. This seems to be an admission it is redundant. It is apparently drawing in viewers somehow and thus wasting their time. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The bot is called to the page by the template Wikidata list, the process should be similarly to my own template cache. If the bot isn't doing something really weird there should be no concerns about recreation or breaking the bot. Here's the BRFA for anyone interested. The page is as noted useless. --Trialpears (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.