Shortcut: WD:RFD

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

From Wikidata
Revision as of 07:32, 17 September 2024 by Gbawden (talk | contribs) (new topic (CD))
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Pages tagged with {{Delete}}

None at the moment

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.

Requests

Please add a new request at the bottom of this section, using {{subst:Rfd |1=PAGENAME |2=REASON FOR DELETION }}.


Q122916541

Big Interview (Q122916541): Tech company offering an online job interview training tool and a library of free online resources.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Notable. Searching Google for "Big Interview" you'll find it's used by a number of US Universities and also Coursera https://www.coursera.org/biginterview Piecesofuk (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That a business or university uses a piece of software or webapp doesn't make it notable. The Coursera page looks like two courses on their platform. Not sure that any of that is a reliable source to establish notibility. -- William Graham (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passes Wikidata notability #2 "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."
Other references:
https://careers.northeastern.edu/article/big-interview/
https://careerservices.upenn.edu/resources/big-interview/
https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/business/2017/05/16/work-wanted-big-interview-great-practice-tool/15755120007/
https://career.ucsb.edu/digital-resources-toolkit/big-interview
https://careers.usc.edu/resources/big-interview/
https://careers.umbc.edu/tools/big-interview/ Piecesofuk (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These read pretty much like written by the company, I think. Thus not serious, in my opinion. --Dorades (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the review in the Florida Times-Union (Q3520924) was written by the company. Anyway, they all show that the platform exists and is widely used and therefore enough to pass Wikidata notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Florida Times Union link seems to be a pretty uncritical listing of product features from a person in that industry. I'm not sure it's especially serious. -- William Graham (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... they all show that the platform exists and is widely used and therefore enough to pass Wikidata notability. Where do you find this in WD:N? --Dorades (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata notability #2 "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." Piecesofuk (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This very paragraph says that "serious and publicly available references" are needed to desribe such an entity. So just existing and being used is not enough. --Dorades (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given plenty of serious and publicly available references above. Here's some more
https://www.vogue.com/article/job-interview-tips-dos-donts-advice
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/mastering-the-online-job-interview/article19626191/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/09/14/the-top-75-websites-for-your-career/ Piecesofuk (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2: Not about the company, just quoting the founder. 3: A forbes list article of 75 items. None of them are serious sources about Big Interview. -- William Graham (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They all describe what the company is, they're all mainstream sources. I really don't understand what your definition of "serious" is then. Since Pamela Skillings (Q122923841) is notable and she co-founded the company then it also passes N3: "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." Piecesofuk (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue criteria 3 for structural need. But in regards to what is serious source for a business, I would want to see either academic/scholarly works or journalistic coverage.
  • I would not accept things that are published by the item's subject or their employees. I.e. blogs and social media
  • Paid content, press releases, and routine financial reporting in the same category as self published works and aren't sufficiently journalism
  • Business directories and telephone directories aren't especially serious.
  • Similarly having search results (on Google, Bing, etc) is probably not enough.
  • For journalistic works, I think there should be some kind of reporting and not simple quoting of the business's marketing materials or attributing a quoted person by identifying their employer. Being mentioned in passing is probably not sufficient serious coverage of the subject. If the article is entirely about the business, I usually want to see some investigation or confirming of facts from sources that are not the subject or their employees. Journalism probably should include a manner of selectivity or editorial, i.e. an large or indiscriminate list of things is probably not sufficient (list article).
This is just my point of view and there have been other discussions in the past where the community has discussed what serious means and declined to try to create some kind of exhaustive list. A serious source can vary due to the nature of the item. See Wikidata talk:Notability.
Edit to add User:Emu/Notability#“serious_and_publicly_available_references” I think this user page, while not policy also has some links to how the community has considered things in the past.

-- William Graham (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response. I've always treated Wikidata's notability far looser than Wikipedia hence I would regard a source citing an entity's existence, as in for example the .edu sites and the Vogue etc. articles, as enough for Wikidata notability. But ultimately it's up to the Administrators what to keep and delete and hopefully they'll perhaps clarify in more detail what notability and serious references mean. Piecesofuk (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I think a lot of Wikidata editors myself included, are sensitive to Wikidata accumulating tons of items on entrepreneurs and businesses (digital startups especially) that feel nearly entirely promotional. Businesses and their advertising agencies/SEO people create items with the hopes that Google will import those items into Google Knowledge Graph. Being in Google Knowledge Graph usually leads to an info box on Google Search results and they hope having one will increase their visibility to customers/investors. So when dealing with those kinds of items there can be an elevated level of skepticism regarding notability. -- William Graham (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and the companies disappear in a year, and all that is left behind are these "pay to play" promotional interviews. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q119702477

Q119702477: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of other websites mention it https://bougetonq.com/reussir-etudes-blog-aide-etudiants/ and 100K+ followers on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rmetudes/ Exilexi (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q7302845

Record Union (Q7302845): Swedish record label: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak keep The most prominent news article I could find was this Billboard piece on a mental health survey they conducted in 2019: [1]. They are also acknowledged on this Spotify page as some kind of business partner [2]. Seem to have a similar (or slightly lower) level of prominence as DistroKid (Q29097055) and CD Baby (Q1023161) in that industry, both of which have Wikipedia articles. Negative factors are that most search results are very low effort "which platform is best for you" SEO pages, but that is probably the normal level of coverage for their peers. William Graham (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124395843

Rahm Khat (Q124395843): composer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? WT20 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per IMDb he has composed music for multiple notable movies, so probably notable. EPIC (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request regarding Rumblesushi

  1. Q116816877 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q117313328 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q117765840 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q116816383 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q117843947 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q117075917 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q117813175 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q117313551 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q116948952 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q117470272 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per WD:N. If you ask/aren't sure, write on Wikidata:Bar, not here. 178.37.205.142 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q19042715

Q19042715: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a specific edition of the work, it was just an unsourced text copypasted to Wikisource from somewhere. After it was deleted there, it can be delete here, too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, link removed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request regarding Kasper Nordkvist

  1. Q124208142 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124451836 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124209839 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q123524363 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts items are notable. 178.37.205.142 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
says who? Amir (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124666348

Q124666348: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, test Nastoshka (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Author of Q124666307, but then all these were created by IP and have no sources. Fralambert (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q108176371

Francesco Filippini - Barche sulla spiaggia

Boats on the beach at Venice (Q108176371): painting by Francesco Filippini: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item created by Lake Como LTA; there doesn't seem to exist a painting with this title Horcrux (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response. For some reason I did not see a notification.
This item was deleted for the same reason given above by Horcrux, but restored on request by @Jarekt in Topic:Xz183i74x04zx7bh. Bovlb (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The item is a place for storing metadata for File:Francesco Filippini - Barche sulla spiaggia (1892-93).jpg painting which was uploaded by User:Иван Богданов and used on bunch of Wikipedias, like for example in ca:Obra artística de Francesco Filippini. It was sold on auction in 2013, so there is at least one reliable source. The auction lists exhibitions where it was shown. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we delete items created by the Lake Como LTA is that they blend truth and fiction and it's therefore impossible to tell whether the created items are real or hoaxes. If an established user is willing to take on responsibility for (the reality of) an item, I'm happy to undelete.
As discussed at the topic linked above, it appears that there are ways Commons users use Wikidata items that are not readily apparent when we delete items. This is something we ought to fix. Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q108184575

Carlo Bazzi, Paesaggio

The afternoon landscape (Q108184575): painting by Carlo Bazzi: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I did not found any reliable source about the existence of this painting; the item was created by the Lake Como LTA Horcrux (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response. For some reason I did not see a notification.
This item was deleted for the same reason given above by Horcrux, but restored on request by @Jarekt in Topic:Xz183i74x04zx7bh. Bovlb (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My role is maintenance of artwork metadata on Commons/Wikidata, the item was deleted leaving broken links from File:Carlo Bazzi, Paesaggio.jpg on Commons. The item was uploaded by User:Xalamea89, who also provided metadata, unfortunately without sources. I do not have art catalogs for Carlo Bazzi, so I can not easily verify the metadata. The painting seems to exist, and I found this source or this one, which might or might not be "reliable" enough. If the item gets deleted please move all the metadata which might be missing to Commons and remove link to the item. --Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q123689937

Q123689937: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is not a real administrative entity (established by a State or a recognized institution). There are no recognized entities that should have this instance, except the ones established by the Moroccan State, which should have region of Morocco (Q845643). The disputed nature of the entities where Q123689937 is used (Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra (Q19951088) and Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab (Q21235104)), can be expressed through other properties. --Ideophagous (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep it's both a geographic region of Western Sahara (this is a fact) and a claimed "administrative entity" that covers what is claimed and occupied by Morocco as well as the liberated territories that are under the control of another state. The OP is aware that this has been discussed at length on the admin's board, so this nomination makes no sense. I will ping Koavf who is familiar with the mentioned discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to keep as there is no reason why this has to be regions of Morocco's occupation in Western Sahara, but regions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Western Sahara. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf In which database or administrative system is this concept used or defined? If it's not formally defined in such a system, then it's not an administrative territorial entity (Q56061). Note the description: territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government, as well as the property part of (P361) => hierarchy of administrative territorial entities (Q4057633). You could argue for "geographic region of Western Sahara", but it's pointless to have this item only for two entities, when the same idea can be captured by simply using location properties and such. Furthermore, the two aformentioned regions are only defined with their names and borders within the Moroccan administrative system. Is SADR officially dividing Western Sahara in the exact same way with the same borders and names? Ideophagous (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in repeating what was discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Herstamp: The item is unreferenced. So what "serious and publicly available references" are you talking about exactly? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
@Herstamp: I agree. Here are the sources: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro. There are others, but these are more than enough. M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The item is unreferenced and it's not even clear the place exists to begin with. So I don't really see why there should be an entry for it, unless someone can find valid references. Then I'd probably lean toward it being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: what exactly constitute a valid source and where should it be added? This one for instance mentions a "region in occupied Western Sahara". Also, both Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro are geographic and political regions of Western Sahara that are claimed and partially liberated by the Polisario (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: What that article specifically references is "the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region in occupied Western Sahara", not "a region" in occupied Western Sahara." I'm sure you get the difference. This entry isn't for Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. What is for is an undefined, unnamed "region" of Western Sahara. Everywhere has "regions" though. So I'm sure you can find any number of articles discussing "regions" of any location on earth. That's not really the point or what I was referring to when I said there wasn't any references. Regardless, you can't just create a vague entry for every undefined region in the world because some places have regions. Be my guest and create one for the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region or whatever though. But "region of Western Sahara" is totally meaningless. It's literally just the Western Sahara. That is the region. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.
"Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.
Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.
Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.
Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"".
Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.
Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong".
"I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q120229700

Yuka Estrada (Q120229700): American illustration editor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This individual is one of the named contributors to Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change (Q60451191), though as there the author is given as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Q171183) I'm not sure how to add the individual authors. I'll ask at Wikidata:WikiProject Climate Change how this should be done. Dsp13 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsp13
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Rajeeb (talk!) 15:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Pauljmackay (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Bukky658 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Dsp13 (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) 168.5.41.197 17:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Lupe (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Samoasambia ✎ 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject Climate Change Is there a solution? Mbch331 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsp13: You must have linked the wrong report. Yukata is named in AR5 WGII (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) which doesn't seem to have Wikidata item yet, not in AR5 WGIII. Individual editors can be added with editor (P98) while IPCC should be publisher (P123). –Samoasambia ✎ 10:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On page 2, are all those names editors? If so, then he can be added with editor (P98).

Q117840901

Tanzir Islam Britto (Q117840901): Bangladeshi physician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable person, previously deleted item Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/02/20#Q117840901

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/01/28#Q124269284
You can read both discussions. One Hundred Years of Solitude (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto.[reply]

*:It's very confusing because facts and sources have now become invalid. I am writing a research article on Wikipedia and its management process. I discussed banning and blocking. In more than 60% of cases, a user loses his/her access just because of a guess. And there are no standard criteria for credibility. If an admin says something is not credible, it gets deleted. its just facts; do not get angry with me. I do not have any financial gain from wikis. I am doing research, and as a PhD student, I found this sector interesting. And Google heavily depends on this foundation. So, few people regulate, which will come first on the Google pages. One Hundred Years of Solitude (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto.[reply]

 Keep
Speculation and suspicion..... Why? Why complicate things, life by doing these...... I said I took his photo. He is my Brother. We now have no communication due to some legal issues. Our inlaws are fighting with each other and my parents. I am feeling so ashamed that I had to disclose so many private things about my and my brother's life.
My brother is a fighter. He wrote books, got the job he loved, he became a physician, trained outside, worked with various castes and religions of people. In Fought with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. If is is not the hero, notable, i do not know who is.
He survived cancer, he fought, got chemotherapy, bone marrow transplant. He survived. He picked up his book, he vomited, then again picked up text books, kept doing that, cause in his CV line, chemo was running.
He passed the Secondary and Higher secondary school certificate exam, without any coaching, tutour, nothing. He just kept reading. The goal was fixed, to be a Doctor.
He became one. I know he is not credible, because his work is not published in the Guardian, Times. He is not a rich youtuber or ambani. He just saves lives everyday, that's all.
My brother is a cheerful man, he got married, and now he is facing divorce. so, during this time, he thought, let's get busy with something purposeful.
He only wanted to write. He created wikidata entry, he thought its like Facebook or linkedin. He created multiple accounts because he thought it was ISP's problem. That id is gone. And few he opened because of fun.
Yeah, he is now a sock. I am not defending him. But as a human being, after watching all these, anyone wants that the story should be heard. Millions of children who hasCancer will get the strength.
No, we will not talk about that. we will talk about duck, sock, ban, block.
I am ready, harsh words, block, ban..... but truth will always be the truth.
I live on the 4th floor.
My brother is on the 2nd floor.
We have the same router.
I apologize for this tone. He is an introvert, very shy. He will accept anything. He is a positive person. I am sorry that he messed up your site.
P:S: By Court, my parents separated everything between us, with one condition. My inlaws and I must not have any contact with my brother…… and yeah, it's Bangladesh, we value our marriage and society, we even give up our brother to save those.
But he did not. He got separated, Got accepted for MRCP part-1, he lives with my parents, i come and go….. He goes to hospital at 6:00 am, sometimes at 1:00am at night he comes back, sometimes after 1-2 days. We have 0 connection between us.
Except the router and some ids which are now I do not know where. We used to edit,create pages like back 2009-10, my brother became so interested that he went insane. He sat with a dictionary, and tried to find which words has no article.
But he relapsed…..again he fought.
Anyways, I am a trainee in Dhaka Medical College. Yeah, I am also….. But please, do not speculate, suspect. It's so sad…..
Now decide guys, erase him? The bad person he is…..or let people know, you can be anything, you can fight like hell, like this man…..
P:S: My brother is in the hospital right now. He has no idea about these. I know you will prove ip, tools etc….. But yes, he is a fighter. Thats all. History will tell his tale….. Omadacycline (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স/Archive, Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto[reply]
 Keep
Published Author
1.A Systematic Review on Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Overlooked Phenomenon in the Health and Research Sector of Bangladesh.[1]
2.A Systematic Review of Pediatric Dialysis in Asia: Unveiling Demographic Trends, Clinical Representation, and Outcomes.[2]
3. Association of Ventricular Extension and Short Term Outcome in Primary Intracerebral Haemorrhage. [3]
He is pretty famous in Bangladesh. One Hundred Years of Solitude (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto.[reply]
  1. ↑ https://www.lens.org/lens/scholar/article/063-216-088-355-007/main
  2. ↑ https://www.lens.org/lens/scholar/article/006-867-262-456-471/main
  3. ↑ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373162535_Association_of_Ventricular_Extension_and_Short_Term_Outcome_in_Primary_Intracerebral_Haemorrhage

* Keep Wikidata:Notability "2 It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." BergwachtBern (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC),Sock of globally banned user Tamawashi-- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request

  1. Q125313049 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q125313082 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Not notable parent and child. Barely identifiable. William Graham (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: advertising items created by Jminot92

  1. Q61727605 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q61786999 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q81275496 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q61787600 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q82240740 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q112116303 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Advertisement items, don't seem notable. William Graham (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Buyagift (Q61727605) Notable business, plenty of coverage online eg, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2006/aug/09/shopping.consumerpages https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/moonpig-splashes-out-14m-on-gift-experience-firms-7q0mgmvwn https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-click-cbwhrws5q8p https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478745/How-to-lord-it-over-your-friends-for-only-29.99.html/1000 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q113556524

Julia Burch (Q113556524): Canadian Internet influencer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MM followers on instagram seems reasonable? BrokenSegue (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the number of followers result in coverage in serious sources? If not, then the number alone probably isn't enough to establish notability. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:409F:4EC:6E03:43FB 17:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media metrics like followers, views, or "likes" aren't an indicator of notability. (Particularly given that there's a whole cottage industry dedicated to falsifying these metrics.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request regarding Boowa & Kwala

Extended content
  1. Q23906515 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q96333022 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q96333026 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q96333032 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q96333037 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q96329861 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q96481958 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q96482173 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q96481965 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q96324255 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q96482133 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q96332827 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q96332856 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q96332878 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Boowa & Kwala (Q23906515) Notable pre-school animation series, eg see https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2001/03/21/www-boowakwala-com_165091_1819218.html and https://www.awn.com/news/boowa-kwala-make-their-us-debut-dvd Piecesofuk (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also keep all the other items or just the main one? --Dorades (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q122912457

Q122912457: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
that blog post is a conceptual entity and it is described by serious and publicly available references: it has a DOI identifier and as a piece of scholarly communication is referenced by Crossref, The Rogue Scholar as well as in social media. Furthermore, a copy of it is available in the Internet archive.
I would argue that this makes it indeed notable, especially comparing it to most of the currently 2262 instances of blog posts on Wikidata. SvenLieber (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how can these references be considered "serious" if they are created by yourself? We would need some independent source that makes it possible to evaluate the notability of your texts (e. g. referenced in scientific texts, published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.). In general, this is not about the quality or importance of your texts, but about their notability according to WD:N. --Dorades (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blog posts being added probably happened because Wikidata seems unable to define what level of granularity is appropriate for different classes of things, provided there is no Wikipedia page. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q116907159

Marius Heinrich (Q116907159): German rapper, singer, and songwriter: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails WD:N --Morneo06 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The item's history confuses me. Was this item repurposed? Is one or all of the contributors paid (cf. User:InquisitiveMindset)? What happened to all the identifiers of the Marius Heinrich this item was representing in the beginning? Are they the same person? Why did a published computer scientist revoke his ORCID? --Dorades (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, this publication and another one are not peer-reviewed and seem to be self-published. --Dorades (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I have entered all the information on the page to the best of my knowledge and ability, based on the data I could find on the internet. However, I did not consider the possibility of a name conflict or that the information might overlap with that of other individuals. If the page does not meet the standards, or if I have made any mistakes, I kindly request its removal. Sorry InquisitiveMindset (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a connection to Q108520425. Could also be the same person as Q125622939. --Dorades (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q115820956

Q115820956: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Currently, it's only used once as class, and it makes the class tree more complex. There's no need for it and it's not used consistently. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q33082483

Family Teamwork (Q33082483): 1946; Frith Films; C; Sd; 18:00;: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be notable, it appears to be a short documentary by Emily Benton Frith (Q76465655) https://archive.org/details/0786_Family_Teamwork_05_18_08_00 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125676121

Rhys Southern (Q125676121): Australian Entrepreneur, Marketer and Public Speaker: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finished with this one and have more referencing to add, but he seems to meet all of the notability requirements, though is not particularly famous - is that a policy? I cannot see it anywhere.
Not sure what the link is that I am seeing is to a dental practice in relation to this entity? ELdEL69 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to the notability requirements stated on WD:N, which ones does this item meet in your view? Being famous is not part of the criteria.
I don't get which link "to a dental practice" you mean? --Dorades (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to assume whatever you like, it has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation.
Is it not? So, then I guess that means that this guy meets the requirements then - just like every other entity on this planet, past/present and future - as he is clearly distinguishable from other entities. Or is there something I have missed about what an entity is and that Wikidata is about cataloguing them to help Wiki projects?
Specifically in the notability requirements it state "...to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large'...if it meets at least one of the three criteria below..."
That means any entity is worth of inclusion, but meets notability for wikidata straight away if it has already been included on another wiki project - as you can see in the statements, I found an image of him on wikidata. ELdEL69 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence that you found an image on Commons that was uploaded two minutes before you added it here. I will refrain from explaining anything about WD:N to you since "it has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation". --Dorades (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is in Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - and I am pretty sure that trumps 99% of other references sources uses for notability in any Wikiproject. I had nothing to do with that image, and had not noticed the upload time or date. I can see it's been deleted though - just a co-incidence, is it? Like the two random comments below, made at the same time. That is more than a little suspicious and by the look of it, goes against the spirit of Wiki projects, doesn't it? ELdEL69 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as non-notable and promotional Jamie7687 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Doesn't appear notable and I don't think that the distant relatives qualify for structural need. --William Graham (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep clearly notable, I found him in Debrett's ELdEL69 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Greetings from Commons. I came here to nominate this for deletion as spam and saw it was already nominated. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This item should be kept because it meets Wikidata's notability criteria. It is linked to a significant topic with verifiable sources, and is mentioned in the Debrett's Baronetage and Peerage. Louissiebert (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125621683

Wasiul Bahar (Q125621683): Wikimedian, organizer, photographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that item helpful for this purpose if there is not even a birth date stated? --Dorades (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for pointing this out. Sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikidata as I mostly work on Commons. Many of my fellow wikimedian, photographers have wikidata items, and I used those items as references. Please let me know if there is anything to add or remove from this particular item. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which references are you referring to? --Dorades (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125693411

Maja Wiśniewska (Q125693411): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Someone thought it was a good idea to put their one-year old on the internet. Problematic wrt WD:LP. Infrastruktur (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I don't see anything in WD:LP to suggest that this item shouldn't be added to Wikidata. It passes WDN3 and the information contained within it is available in publicly accessible sources and also in the two Polish Wikipedia articles https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friz and https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wersow Piecesofuk (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I would say that the item whould be more probeblatic with LP if the source was from social medias. But it seem to be from newspapers. Fralambert (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: source doesn't indicate any stand-alone notability, we have no evidence the child itself is okay with having their personal information shared now or in the future. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124810095

Mayukh Mukherjee (Q124810095): Actor and Academic: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Article deleted from all wikipedia sites Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: non-notable web series and episodes

  1. Q125447540 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q125901298 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q125902599 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q125902601 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q125902602 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q125927717 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q125927719 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q125927720 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

non-notable and promotional items, associated with Q125469572, Q125768759, and this sockpuppet investigation on enwiki Jamie7687 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned items are not promotional or non-notable. Below are some of reference source associated with this items :
These are some source associated with these items. If not enough then i can provide more. Loischaa (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These appear to establish promotional activity, not notability. A larger number of links is not needed; rather, we need links to reliable sources that cannot be easily influenced by a person looking to promote their content. Not all of these links even work; if the TMDB link ever worked, somebody at TMDB may have decided that this doesn't meet their standards, either. Jamie7687 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i understand, wait at least a week before deleting. Because production side conformed that the series is closely telecast in CIS countries officially. So may be the OTT source is better according to your conditions.
Here the trailer link, if the official YouTube channel is consider as notable :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6xovLGrz-c Loischaa (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having an "official" YouTube channel absolutely does not establish notability, nor do vague claims from "production side" — we need reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Loischaa You should proably read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted. Fralambert (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have created an antispam report at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#The_Rashid_Khan/TRK_Studios/The_Mars/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125901596

Q125901596: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Season of non-notable web series Jamie7687 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(which are nominated in a bulk request above) Jamie7687 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wait before deleting any item, i will provide referencing source for there items shortly. Loischaa (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links of Wikipedia articles in different language, of item The Mars (Q125447540) which is parent item of The Mars Season 1 (Q125901596) :
Wikipedia article for the nominated items may be created if any editor want to create. Loischaa (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note for others: all of these articles were created by Amirdelv (talk • contribs • logs), an account blocked indefinitely on enwiki and simplewiki in relation to w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an antispam report at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#The_Rashid_Khan/TRK_Studios/The_Mars/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what does it mean? Loischaa (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125118469

Q125118469: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable person. Created as part of a personal crusade by Richard Norton to create items on Wikidata and upload files on Commons related to "apparent" (though disputed) relatives. By creating items on Wikidata, linked from Commons, these items were artificially made to be "on scope" but they are not. The files are up for discussion at Commons too, because they are only linked from Wikidata, in an obvious effort to get these items and files on scope on both projects, deceiving the rules of both projects.

This request also includes:

Q125118675: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q125118971: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q125943489: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q125973531: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q125973633: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

--Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed. As I've pointed out at commons:COM:AN/U I've come across several categories on Commons linking to Wikidata items solely for the purpose of generating a genealogical tree. This means they have created several dozens of these items for irrelevant people, creating a Commons category or the like, for them to be in scope in both projects. --Bedivere (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep As creator, this appears to be part of a harassment/punishment/revenge campaign against me over this edit. It is being performed in tandem with nominating hundreds of uploads at Commons. Its a very clever form of harassment, you can nominate an entire category in a few seconds and the uploader will spend months defending the images. See: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). It is an abuse of power by someone with admin rights, they don't have the temperament for the role, a single edit disagreement has turned into a long term campaign of harassment and revenge for disagreeing with them. By adding "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed" they are trying to recruit others to harass me. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." --RAN (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to get tired of you playing the victim role when it's been you who has been playing with the rules. More over, you accuse me of starting a harassment campaign only because you've been caught misusing Wikidata and Commons? How can holding you accountable be anywhere near harassing? You have a problem by failing to respond serious questions and issues. Now, on the Commons, you claim again I started a harassment campaign "now" when this was started nearly two days ago. I would like to get an apology from you for all these personal attacks but I doubt I will get them. Whatever, I am not participating anymore in this discussion, neither on Commons. You should stop the drama and start to work collaboratively without attacking others. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for implying that your harassment campaign started "now" when, as you wrote, you started it "nearly two days ago". I hope that misunderstanding has been cleared up. --RAN (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no harassment campaign. That is what you should apologize for. You, like all of us, can be held accountable for your actions and that is all I've been doing. Bedivere (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bedivere:, They're doing the same thing to me after I have started removing foundation associated with problematic articles created by a user who has been using the platform to create promotional articles about his own family members and making pages about his parents, grand parents, great grand parents and such. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others have questioned your actions and whether you have the temperament and maturity to have access to admin tools: "[this] is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin." See: here, over the kneejerk nomination of 423 images and threating blockage over a single edit disagreement. --RAN (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could somebody please block this guy? They've been harassing me for over a week. Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete These items are an attempt of using Wikidata as personal genealogy service. Ankry (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "a personal genealogy service", the entries on humans are available for anyone to use in whatever educational purposes they need. Other serious and public databases of humans used for educational purposes: Findagrave with 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch with over 500 million entries on humans. Wikidata has about 10 million entries on humans. We only have restrictions on living humans involved in self promotion, and restrictions on private information on living humans. None of the individuals are living. --RAN (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Ankry; this kind of circular "notability" i.e., the categories on Commons are notable because of the Wikidata item which is notable because of Commons, is pretty ridiculous, and I'm surprised there isn't a policy to cover this. RAN should give actual uses of the people described on actual sitelinks, not this circular nonsense. Matrix (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, you need to cite policy, not "I'm surprised there isn't a policy to cover this", but actual policy, not your suggestions for future policy. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Is your argument that the references are not public, or that they are not serious? There is no requirement that any contributor: "give actual uses of the people described". I am not even sure what "actual uses" means, perhaps something like Wikipedia:Notability, where you need to be "famous". --RAN (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was pretty clear I was mentioning Wikidata:Notability. But yes, there are no serious and publicly available references. There are millions of people with geanalogy certificates and records, it is by no means a serious reference. Your addition of Fandom content to the first Q doesn't count either as a user-generated source from a "semantic wiki for genealogy" that allows you "you [to] keep your family history research" that you may or may not have created yourself. Matrix (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your interpretation of policy is borderline wikilaywering, plus you are not considering the impact of your interpretation. You are effectively opening the doors to create millions of new Qs based on just a Findagrave and FamilySearch ID. Wikidata is not a genealogy service - we only store people if there is something somewhat notable about them, not just because their birth certificate is on a website. Yes, I am aware the line for notability on Wikidata is low, but it is not this low. By that logic if I upload my birth certificate onto one of these websites am I now magically notable? Matrix (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikidata is not a genealogy service", correct! It is a database of databases. To make it into a genealogy service we would have to delete everything that is not instance_of=human, and just keep the 10 million entries on people. "If I upload my birth certificate onto one of these websites am I now magically notable", no! You would be a living person involved in self-promotion, and you would be doxing a living person, even though that living person is yourself. Commons deletes documents on living people that discloses personal information on a regular basis. People need to be "somewhat notable", you are thinking of Wikipedia where people need to be famous. "Wikilaywering", if you mean citing precedents and policy in a cogent fashion, then I would say that is a good thing. --RAN (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are citing policy, but you are not considering the impacts of your interpretation (hence wikilawyering). I am not thinking of Wikipedia, no. You seem to be attacking everything except my core argument, so I'll condense it for you. Wikidata should not store a person just because they exist, and have a birth certificate or information on one of these genealogy websites. Doing so would mean the millions of people on these genealogy websites are now somehow notable enough to have a Wikidata entry. This is henceforth in no way a "serious" reference. Matrix (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make Wikidata:Notability to be more restrictive, like Wikipedia and require "fame", by all means lobby to make those changes. You can restrict Wikidata to only contain people that already have Wikipedia entries. --RAN (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete At least one of these items, William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir, isn't referenced to anything. Serious or otherwise. Whereas the others seem to just be referenced to ancestory.com/findagrave.com and I've seen nothing after years of editing entries for people on here to indicate those are good enough on their own. Least of all because both are volunteer created and edited databases that often contain many errors. Nor do I think they are considered "serious" for the purposes of Wikidata anyway. Again, at least not without anything else supporting whatever they being referenced for.
Plus there's a lot of un-referenced "facts" in these entries to begin with. To the point that if said "facts" were to be deleted all that would remain is "so-and-so is a person. Ancestory.com says so." And I just don't think that works per Wikidata:Notability "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." "X is X" isn't a description of anything and a single reference isn't "references." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have over 1,000,000 data points without references, if that demands deletion, then they all will need to be deleted, otherwise it is selective enforcement. "Ancestory" [sic] is a strawman argument. For instance, for William Francis Norton, the link to Familysearch is connected to 22 documents, from his baptism in Ireland to his death certificate in 1939 in Manhattan. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." That is 22 "serious and publicly available references". Once again, are you arguing that the 22 references are not serious, or are not public? Argument: "[Findagrave is a] created and edited databases that often contain many errors". That describes Wikipedia and Wikidata, yet Wikipedia had fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica. Both VIAF and LCCN use Wikidata despite that it "often contain many errors", and of course each of those authority control databases contain errors. See: Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control/LCCN_errors and Wikidata:VIAF/cluster/conflating entities. This is part of a concerted harassment campaign. --RAN (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): To quote from Dorades' comment below "Just adding that Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889), that were brought up above, are both Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320)." I'm sure you'll just chalk that up to a "concerted harassment campaign" on the part of whomever originally decided the properties don't imply notability though like you've done with everything else. Clearly everyone on here is just out to get you lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a personal project by Pigsonthewing, it doesn't trump: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are both serious and public. It was never codified into Wikidata:Notability. Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch (P2889) are both public and serious. If it does get codified into Wikidata:Notability then we have to delete every entry that uses them.
  •  Delete - I don't think it is a good idea to create an item in Wikidata for every person that once lived and for whom a birth certificate or grave yard record can be found in some archive or so. Take Q125973633 with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and Q125973531 with the description: "(1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney". What made these people so special? From the descriptions I get the idea the most important part is that they have been married to each other. So what? No Wikimedia project like en-wiki has an article/page about both of them! If we keep items like this we might end up with billions of items about humans that make it extremely difficult to find the item about a person (living or not) that fits better in Wikidata. - Robotje (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." This is not Wikipedia and we do not use Wikipedia:Notability where entries on humans need to be "special" or famous. I agree with: "I don't think it is a good idea to create an item in Wikidata for every person that once lived", we should only have entries for people that can be "described using serious and publicly available references". Millions of people existed before "serious and publicly available references" existed. As to "extremely difficult to find the item" Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, and yet I am able to find the exact person I am looking for in a few nanoseconds. Again, this is part of a concerted harassment campaign, and none of the deletion rationales cite an actual rule that contradicts: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references". --RAN (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, "Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, and yet I am able to find the exact person I am looking for in a few nanoseconds." The first name I found on your user-page (ignoring the TOC) is John Smith. I just did a search for that name in findagrave.com and they mentioned that 87728 persons were found showing less than 1% of them. The latency for that website, the database search time, the time for your browser to display it, the refresh of your screen, the time for you to read it takes way more then a few nanoseconds. And still you try to convince me that you only need a few nanoseconds to find the right record. It is obvious you are bluffing. You also referred to my explanation as "... part of a concerted harassment campaign ..." What proof do you have that I took part of some kind of joint effort to harass you? Nobody asked or contacted me about this nor did I contact someone about this. Again you are bluffing. - Robotje (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think it is a good idea ..." (my emphasis added) Your thoughts are not Wikidata policy. None of the entries nominated are for a "John Smith", so there is no worry about finding the correct one. And when I search Findagrave for the John Smith who died in Ireland in 1861 I only find two people. Perhaps for you it will take milliseconds and not nanoseconds. It took me longer to type in the search parameters than to run the search. If you want to lobby for a new rule, where we disallow Wikidata entries for people with common names because it may be difficult to disambiguate them, that would be an interesting idea. I mention "John Smith" on my Wikidata page to show how linking is better at Wikidata than at Wikipedia, Q-number are permanent and Wikipedia entries for people with common names are constantly changing. People identified in images at the Flickr Commons project with common names, no longer point to the proper person as "John Smith (politician)" may become "John Smith (mayor)" and "John Smith (politician)" may become a disambiguation page.----RAN (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889), that were brought up above, are both Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). --Dorades (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a personal project by Pigsonthewing, it doesn't trump: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are both serious and public. It was never codified into Wikidata:Notability. There are over 5,000 entries using only Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889). There has been no attempt to delete them all and deleting 5 entries would constitute selective enforcement. --RAN (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Regardless of how many unreferenced entries currently exist I still think that at least things like birth dates where there's a specific warning should be referenced and "well, other people don't reference either. So whatever. I'm being harassed!" is a good excuse. So is there a reason you can't at least use the actual source documents as references instead of either just not referencing the information at all or doing it by way of a private document that no one outside of the family has access to? Otherwise it's kind of like using a Google Search as a reference instead of the actual website where you found the information. Or being like "the reference is a napkin that I wrote the information down on and tossed out afterwards week ago."
  • Absolutely! Selective enforcement of any rule or selective enforcement of any law is harassment, and abuse of power. As you well know, the source document exists, you voted to delete it. It was deleted using the "bad faith" argument, based on a novel rule applied only in this case, that if someone adds a document at Commons and also adds an entry for that document at Wikidata, that represents "bad faith". And the rule will apply only for this particular case, and will not be applied universally. Another example of selective enforcement. --RAN (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point in references is that people can check them for accuracy or whatever and that clearly can't be done here because of how your doing it. 100% those types of entries should entries should be deleted. Or at least the unreferenced information should be cited to something. You can't just say someone was born on a certain date or in a specific place without evidence and say it's cool because other people are doing it to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you start a thread about deleting all the data that is unreferenced in Wikidata, all >1,000,000 data points, and I will support the outcome. That way you can show it isn't selective enforcement, and you really believe in the cause. And I am sure you already looked at the tombstones and birth, marriage and death records already provided for each person. It seems that whatever I do you are just going to keep moving the goalposts. --RAN (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your doing the same deflecting as on Commons. This doesn't have anything to do with "all unreferenced data points" in Wikidata. I'm not the one who keeps moving the goalposts, you are. Stick to the topic and answer the question. Why not reference the entries for biographical information to the actual documents? Your the claiming they exist and it's where you got the data from. Your also the one who keeps citing "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." You can't have it both ways where the entries need to be described "using publicly available references" and then just whine that you don't have to do it that way because other people aren't. Especially since your the one who's repeatedly bringing the guideline up to begin with. It's your standard! --Adamant1 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the >1,000,000 data points that do not have references are you challenging as incorrect? Please be specific. You keep bringing up that data is unreferenced and needs to be deleted, but have not said which data point you are challenging as incorrect. --RAN (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your just deflecting. Your the one who repeatedly cited the notability requirements that say "the entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." So what exactly are the "publicly available references" your claiming make the entries you created notable and why haven't you added the references to them? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now for the third time, which data point/points are you challenging? You keep shouting the same thing, but have not provided an answer, you just keep shouting "references" without any context or providing an example where a reference is missing or the data provided by a reference is incorrect. Then when I show that "publicly available references" are there, you move the goalpost to "serious", again without specifying a data point where the reference is not "serious". Then the cycle begins again. --RAN (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take Q125973633 with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and Q125973531 with the description: "(1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney". What made these people so special? From the descriptions I get the idea the most important part is that they have been married to each other. What serious source do you think was used? Who wrote that source and when and where was it published? Was the source a neutral source? If you have convincing answers for these questions I will certainly reconsider my 'vote' for deletion. - Robotje (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "What serious source do you think was used?" The sources are all provided. Which of the 9 documents at Familysearch do think is incorrect, or biased, or not serious, which are you challenging as containing errors? Her marriage and death records come from the State of Massachusetts. Do you think that the information on her tombstone was deliberately incorrect because the person that provided it was biased or not a "neutral source"? You wrote: "What made these people so special?" Being "special" or famous is the realm of Wikipedia not Wikidata. Wikidata is just an authority control database with information from other databases, that are "serious and publicly available". The argument that Wikidata should follow Wikipedia notability rules or only contain entries for people with Wikipedia entries has been rejected many times. --RAN (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My summary We have four arguments for deletion but none of them cite a specific policy from Wikidata:Notability that is contravened. One argument is "What made these people so special?" but we do not require people to be "special" or entries have "actual uses", that is why we have Wikipedia. Another argument was the "John Smith" argument, that if we have too many entries, people will not be able to find the one they are looking for. We can't read minds or foretell the future to know which "John Smith" anyone will be looking for. If you are looking for a famous "John Smith" search in Wikipedia. Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, all easy to search for. Another argument was that the references were not "serious", but the references were chosen by Wikidata to be Identifiers because they are "serious and public". --RAN (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the argument that the entries aren't "described using serious and publicly available references", which you seem to be ignoring even though your the one who's cited that exact guideline multiple times. Well, at least not outside of wikilaywyering by citing other stuff. But still. You can't just selectively bring up a guideline to support your argument and then ignore it when it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per others above, Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). Yes, they are identifiers, but they do not imply notability. The idea that these identifiers were chosen by Wikidata's community to be identifiers merely because they were "serious" references and imply notability is wrong - for example, YouTube channel ID (P2397) exists as an identifier, but merely having a YouTube channel ID doesn't imply notability. The purpose of an identifier is to identify the subject, not to create notability out of thin air. Matrix (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two arguments contradict each other. One says we need to have "publicly available references" (like Findagrave and Familysearch). The other says we can't have Findagrave and Familysearch because they appear in a list called "not imply notability" and somehow that trumps Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." There is no proviso in Wikidata:Notability that mentions the "not imply notability" list. If you want to change the terms and wording of Wikidata:Notability, you have to lobby for the changes. --RAN (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What do you think the word "serious" in the guideline implies? Because you seem to be leaving that part of it out of the equation. Its also why a source like YouTube doesn't go towards notability even though its "publicly available." So how are Findagrave or familysearch "serious references" or anymore so then YouTube (which I assume you agree doesn't infer notability)? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A serious source, rather than a "satirical" source, like The Onion (Q618236), that deliberately provides fake news for entertainment. See: w:List of satirical news websites. YouTube is a straw man argument (Q912820), none of the entries use YouTube as a reference for any of the data provided. --RAN (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is a straw man argument (Q912820) Not any more or less then you citing other unsourced entries as an excuse for why these one's shouldn't be deleted. I think it's relevant though because it and websites like findagrave.com both contain user generated content. Which at least IMO is why they wouldn't qualify as "serious references." Or to put it another way, a website created by users who and don't have an established process of fact checking just isn't an earnest reference for factual information.
  • "A website created by users", that sound like Wikipedia and like Wikidata. I guess we should warn the Library of Congress to stop linking their LCCN database to Wikidata, perhaps they are unaware that it is crowdsourced. Actually Findagrave (FAG) is under the editorial control of Ancestry.com and does have a process of correcting errors, just like Wikipedia and Wikidata corrects errors. You also are not distinguishing between using Findagrave as an Identifier and using Findagrave as a reference for a data point. None of the Wikidata entries nominated are using FAG as a reference for a datapoint, so this is another example of a "strawman argument". --RAN (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's also why I've asked several times now why you don't just reference the original documents that supposedly contain the information. I'd be perfectly fine with you using say the United States Census over just a link to a Findagrave page that doesn't say were the birth and death information even came from to begin with. I'd consider that a serious source compared to there being essentially none with Findagrave. I don't know how many times I've requested a picture of a gravestone on there and it turned out the original birth or death dates were wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "I don't know how many times I've requested a picture of a gravestone on there and it turned out the original birth or death dates were wrong." If you do not know how many times, perhaps the answer in zero. You are welcome to link to the Findagrave entries where this occurred. Findagrave keeps a log of all changes. --RAN (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG. We cycled back to shouting not "serious references", yet you have not told me which data point you are challenging as incorrect. Tomorrow you will be back to shouting not "public references", again without a specific data point you are challenging as incorrect. If you think Findagrave is not a "serious or public" website, lobby to have it deleted as an Identifier from all records. --RAN (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep we don't delete entries because "What made these people so special?" or they are not notable. on wikidata we do create thousands of scientific papers everyday (just a random example) that "have nothing notable". and we create the associated authors that "have nothing notable" and "that have nothing so special". i strongly agree with those who encourage the contributor to add reference for those items, so the accuracy of the info is clear and easily verifiable. --Deansfa (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the point. There are no "serious references" per above. Find a Grave is user-generated information, and hence not serious per above. Matrix (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not appear to understand the difference between an Identifier and a reference, none of the entries use Findagrave as a reference, all have Findagrave as an Identifier, An Identifier just points to other websites that have an entry for that person. I think I have now asked at least six times: What data point is using FAG as a reference, or is unreferenced, or even under-referenced? Each time I ask, I get no response. You just keep shouting "serious references" as if it was a magic spell. If you think Findagrave should not be an Identifier you are free to lobby for its removal, and it can be removed from every entry. --RAN (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I will end up asking a seventh time, since it is still unanswered, and you are again going to shout "serious references" again somewhere down below. --RAN (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the n-teenth time, the mere existence of an identifier for an item doesn't imply notability. YouTube channel ID was an example of this, and is not a straw man argument. There is no policy that shows the existence of an item's identifier implies notability. But to be honest, these words clearly aren't being taken into consideration by you, so I might start an RFC or something. Matrix (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still are conflating a reference with an Identifier. The are not synonyms. --RAN (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Wikidata:Notability, Q125118469 contains a valid sitelink to a Wikimedia Commons page. --Greghenderson2006 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the Wikimedia Commons page is being kept because there is a Wikidata item. Such a circular narrative has to be dealt with somewhere, preferably here. Matrix (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." There is no proviso demanding that two different people have to create the entry in Commons and the entry in Wikidata. You can lobby for those changes at Commons instead of an ad hoc deletion based on a non-existent rule that you hope someday will be created. Stick to notability rules as they currently exist, not based on how you wish they existed. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can lobby for those changes at Commons I'm pretty sure that conversation has already been had on Commons' end several times now and the same argument was made in reverse. "You can lobby for those changes at Wikidata if you disagree with them." The whole thing is just a curricular strawman by people who either create questionable Wikidata items or uploaded out of scope content to Commons and can't make a better argument for it. The fact is that it needs to be resolved though and this seems like as good a place as any. It would at least be better then the bludging whine-fest you've turned this into. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason Wikidata:Use common sense exists - to ensure following rules without a clear purpose does not occur. This is an example of such a case. Matrix (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy at Wikidata:Use common sense reads: "If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, use common sense and ignore it." The policy is about keeping entries, not deleting them. --RAN (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete As others have mentioned, this is looking like genealogy entries for ordinary people and trying to turn it into FamilySearch type deal. It's disingenuous to claim a picture you uploaded is notable, because there's a folder for that photo you made, or that a folder is notable, because it's used to put a photo that you uploaded. Family genealogy by users about their own family shouldn't be on any wikiemedia platform. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep has a valid sitelink to a valid category with valid files. That’s literally all you need for a wikidata item (besides some things that are basically givens like “it can be reasonably proven to exist” and “having a data entry would be useful”). I feel like this is yet another one of those “all projects exist to serve Wikipedia and obey its rules” situations. These individuals would never get a WP article; that’s completely irrelevant. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request

Extended content
  1. Q53925659 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q53928008 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q54278610 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q54762338 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q62662230 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q62648172 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q59910275 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q66818167 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q55229956 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q125417211 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124358328 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124364549 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q123570535 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q123570398 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q118923879 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
  16. Q120000704 (delete | history | links | logs)
  17. Q118179203 (delete | history | links | logs)
  18. Q117841850 (delete | history | links | logs)

Spam from a banned user Benoît Prieur. Books not used on the Wiki projects Durifon (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pygame - Iníciese en el desarrollo de video juegos en Python (Q120000704) is a published book, so probably notable. Actually, it's more how we consider ENI editions (Q53343983) as a reliable editing house. Fralambert (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some may be borderline (eg. Q62662230) but most seems notable enough for Wikidata. @Fralambert: I don't see a problem ENI editions (Q53343983) ; I'm more concerned about Kindle Direct Publishing (Q15823534). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Books published at ENI éditions should not be deleted IMO. Thibaut (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I would mark WPF : développez des applications structurées (MVVM, XAML...) (Q53925659), WPF : développez des applications structurées (MVVM, XAML...) (Q54278610), Programmation en C# : préparation aux certifications MCSA - Examen 70-483 (Q54762338), Informatique quantique : de la physique quantique à la programmation quantique en Q# (Q59910275), Pygame - Initiez-vous au développement de jeux vidéo en Python (Q66818167), Traitement automatique du langage naturel avec Python : Le NLP avec spaCy et NLTK (Q124364549) and Pygame - Iníciese en el desarrollo de video juegos en Python (Q120000704) as notable since they are published by ENI. Fralambert (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q112259721

Reza Torkzadeh (Q112259721): author and lawyer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Failed notability referenced, lost all links on Wikimedia sites. Lemonaka (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did write a book published by Lioncrest Publishing (Q125781254). [3]. Fralambert (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion from The Peerage

  1. Q76189137 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q76189140 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q76189141 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q76189142 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q76189144 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Members of the same Ryan/Leahy family (linked to each others); all data is coming from The Peerage but the pages have been deleted from the source and the IDs have been reassigned. VIGNERON (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--VIGNERON (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It looks like something went wrong in the linking at The Peerage, we have two men married in the 1800s. I suspect that it was too difficult to untangle and The Peerage just deleted the people. I will try and fix the errors and supply identifiers for Familysearch and Findagrave. If I run into the same problem, that it is too difficult to untangle, I will change to delete for some of the people. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )! (I did have a quick search but didn't found other sources, thanks a lot for finding them). I withdraw my request for these items but I still wonder if we should delete Margaret Ryan (Q76189137), you repurposed it but it feels very wrong (ironically, it's the exactly what The Peerage did that cause the problem that we want to avoid). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I looked at the tree in Ancestry and Familysearch and in the Australian birth and death index, all the information that had been "Thomas" was actually for "Margaret", there already was an entry for "Thomas" in Wikidata, he was listed as a child twice. We maintain a large list of Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/The Peerage errors. It looks like these entries were created as part of a The Peerage project on the pioneer families of Australia. I can see why The Peerage gave up, it would have been easier to just delete and start over at some future time, it took me several hours to fix. It is a shame that Australia does not preserve their censuses, after collating the data, they destroy the originals with all the family information. The England census fully preserved goes back to 1841 and the first USA census to name all family members was in 1850 and is fully preserved. --RAN (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q112633731

Q112633731: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111086347

Q111086347: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111077196

Vincere (Q111077196): Software as a service: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111077449

ITD World (Q111077449): Coaching & Training center in Malaysia: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q116149665

Pierce Visual Works Vina (Q116149665): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q108440424

Hưng Thịnh (Q108440424): Vietnamese conglomerate: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q122182842

Christopher Ssebuyungo (Q122182842): Ugandan conservator and archaelogist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reference on the item describes him as "Local UNESCO World Heritage volunteer". That's not enough to identify this person in a clear unambiguous way. --Dorades (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which papers, chapters, books or other writings did he author? --Dorades (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these self-published, peer-reviewed, published in a renowned journal or publishing house, ...? --Dorades (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q112846760

Tracy L. Porter (Q112846760): Executive Vice President of Commercial Metals Company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Notable: passes at least WDN3 as he is listed as the chief operating officer (P1789) of Commercial Metals Company (Q5152510) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Metals_Company Piecesofuk (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q89125201

Q89125201: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails Wikidata:Notability The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q92375119

Q92375119: sculpture by Ester Wallin: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The artwork has been removed from the City of Pori Art Collection. The link to the museum director´s decision in Finnish: https://pori.cloudnc.fi/fi-FI/Viranhaltijat/Taidemuseon_johtaja/Kokoelmapoistopaatos_1_2023(105366) --Jasleht (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasleht Sculpture existed and was destroyed by falling and breaking. No need to delete the item, just update the item to indicate it was destroyed and how. Also could add an end time for when it officially exited the holdings.  Keep William Graham (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q92401284

Louhi (Q92401284): sculpture by Joseph Kurhajec: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The artwork has been removed from the City of Pori Art Collection. The link to the museum director´s decision in Finnish: https://pori.cloudnc.fi/fi-FI/Viranhaltijat/Taidemuseon_johtaja/Kokoelmapoistopaatos_1_2023(105366) --Jasleht (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Artwork existed and was removed from a collection. No need to delete, instead update the item to indicate the change of facts. William Graham (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q92397370

Moment II (Q92397370): sculpture by Ari Virtanen: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The artwork has been removed from the City of Pori Art Collection. The link to the museum director´s decision in Finnish: https://pori.cloudnc.fi/fi-FI/Viranhaltijat/Taidemuseon_johtaja/Kokoelmapoistopaatos_1_2023(105366) --Jasleht (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Artwork existed and was removed from a collection. No need to delete, instead update the item to indicate the change of facts. William Graham (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q92401347

Art that is usable for birds (Q92401347): environmental artwork by Working group Ossi Somma, Pertti Mäkinen, Reijo Paavilainen: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The artwork has been removed from the City of Pori Art Collection. The link to the museum director´s decision in Finnish: https://pori.cloudnc.fi/fi-FI/Viranhaltijat/Taidemuseon_johtaja/Kokoelmapoistopaatos_1_2023(105366) --Jasleht (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Artwork existed and was removed from a collection. No need to delete, instead update the item to indicate the change of facts. William Graham (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124472213

Q124472213: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q113884845

Q113884845: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q113885308

Q113885308: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q89121278

Georges Colazzo (Q89121278): French actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. This is related to the REDEYE nonsense above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Q126028498 is a redirect to Q89121278 and should be deleted at the same time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete William Graham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q49292210

Vachendorf (Q49292210): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Does not exist --JokiVatanen (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It exists according to de:Vachendorf#Gemeindegliederung where it is described as a parish village (Q1493533); it also contains a Rathaus (Q543654) so municipality seat (Q15303838) is correct. I improved the coordinates; the sources were originally not very precise. Peter James (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111309102

Carolyn Shelby (Q111309102): web designer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references do you consider serious? --Dorades (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q47506301

Q47506301: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No wikilinks. See also (Wikipedia:Biểu quyết xoá bài/Đoàn Thị Thanh Mai). eunn (meta · phab) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Looking at the original article https://web.archive.org/web/20220630153340/https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90o%C3%A0n_Th%E1%BB%8B_Thanh_Mai she appears to appears to be a national politician and therefore passes Wikidata notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q18481161

Cartoon Network (Q18481161): Portuguese language feed of Cartoon Network Latin America: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The Brazilian feed for the CNLA channel article on English Wikipedia now redirects to the CNLA channel itself, also the CNBR channel is a feed of CNLA with different schedules despite sharing the same shows. --VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125967868

HEC Paris in Qatar Building (Q125967868): education organization in Doha, Qatar: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Same as Q59535271 which is the good one --2A01:CB00:420:B700:E120:B471:96EE:C99C 09:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep No the same one is the building the other one the school. Fralambert (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q123043694

Svitavka (Q123043694): stream in Česká Lípa District: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q245101 --VasekPav (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The identifier in DIBAVOD ID (P7227) is for a side stream (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82074010) - I don't know if it should be a separate item, an alternative would be to merge them but I'm unsure of the qualifiers to use on the identifiers. Peter James (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111667822

Busy Being Black (Q111667822): podcast exploring queer Black lives: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Notable podcast. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Rivers#Busy_Being_Black https://blackpodawards.com/our-nominees-and-winners/category-winners/our-best-lgbtq-podcast-award-winners/ and https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/podcast/8-podcasts-from-black-brits Piecesofuk (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q114964941

Damien Williams (Q114964941): American academic, professor of philosophy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability not shown Gymnicus (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126724843

Matheson Lang Gardens (Q126724843): council estate in North Lambeth, London, UK: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep It has a valid Identifier. --RAN (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a identifier that imply notability. Fralambert (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is someone's pet project that was never incorporated into Wikidata:Notability, it doesn't trump "serious and public" references. The "Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability" was never made clear by the creator, Pigsonthewing, if he meant Wikidata:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability. When I asked him, he said he had no input as to what Identifiers were added to the property. --RAN (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably  Keep If it's on a map wouldn't it automatically pass WDN2? I've added another identifier: OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) This was also the location of a murder in 2008 which was widely reported in the British press Piecesofuk (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Being on what looks like a property list or map doesn't establish notability. William Graham (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata:Notabilty only requires that "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." --RAN (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment should be considered together with Q126936162 (Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q126936162). --Dorades (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Journalism coverage and being a good neighbor for OpenStreetMap, which benefits from the linkable identifier.--Lord Minimoff (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). --Dorades (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above: "It's not a identifier that imply notability": That was Pigsonthewing's project that was never incorporated into Wikidata:Notability, it doesn't trump "serious and public" references. If you want to incorporate that list into Wikidata:Notability, there will have to be a vote on it. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q22259959

Q22259959: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails WD:N, created for self-promotion Nemoralis (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q100658686

The Great Mouse Detective universe (Q100658686): narrative universe of the eponymous 1986 Walt Disney Animation Studios film: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Seems entirely redundant to [ present in work] --> [The Great Mouse Detective]. No sources that a 'universe' exists. Created by an IP that went on a 'Universe' creating spree. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment For the history -- the item was created by a regular contributor, not by an IP user. --Wolverène (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not notable. And in general "fictional universe" is a tortured ontology that rarely applies where it is used. William Graham (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's over-structuring, as for me, definitely redundant. Technically, every narrative work (short story, novel, film, TV series, etc.) has its own fictional universe, not necessary well described by reliable sources or even by its creator(s). Would be strange to create as many items for those universes as possible (at least, the vast majority is not unique). The item contains even no proof in the item that the Great Mouse Detective universe is really independent from other Disney film universes. --Wolverène (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no proof in the item that the Great Mouse Detective universe is independent from the Marvel Cinematic universe. Trade (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is none. Marvel was not a part of The Walt Disney Company in 1986. --Wolverène (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean they couldn't have been taking place in the same universe Trade (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are like an infinite number of Marvel universes Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. A related discussion took place regarding "Disney fictional universes" (Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/06/28#Q101099318); my comments there generally apply to this entity as well. That Professor Ratigan (Q1622838) (for example) is a character appearing in The Great Mouse Detective can be described adequately using present in work (P1441); there's no need to invoke a "fictional universe" to describe that relationship. (User:Adamant1 also astutely mentions that the "fictional universe" of this film is essentially just "late 1800s London".) Omphalographer (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per User:Omphalographer. The movie takes place in London, which isn't a "universe." Otherwise any movie or location from one would qualify as a "universe." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every creative work by it's very nature have a location that ot takes place in some location. Citing the existence of the narrative location as a reason for deleting the narrative universe is nonsensical.
The idea of a fictional universe and the temporal/spatial setting of a work are slightly different things. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but there's also a lot of fictional works whose settings are so grounded in reality that it's impossible to justify a claim that they exist in a distinct "fictional universe". Consider The Catcher in the Rye, for instance - its setting is unambiguously New York City in the mid-20th century. It would be entirely unnecessary to divorce it from that reality by describing it and its characters as existing in a "Catcher in the Rye fictional universe". Omphalographer (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I tend to agree with Xezbeth but I also see the concerns raised by other users. In general there is no use of a fictional universe item for a universe described by only one work (unless the universe itself is described in secondary sources, of course) but we don't require more than one work, either. I think we should make it clear (e.g. in Wikidata:WikiProject_Fictional_universes) that it is not necessary to create a fictional universe item just to link characters, (fictional) locations, etc. It is fine if a character does not have a statement from narrative universe (P1080) (I tend to blame tools like Recoin for rather excessive creations of fictional universe items as this tool suggests an item may be incomplete if it does not have statements like from narrative universe (P1080)).
I had a look at fictional universes described by only one work: query and there are 344 cases, currently. While some may be legit, others seem a bit much. Besides Romeo and Juliet universe (Q124215075) we have an own item for the 1996 adaption Romeo + Juliet (Romeo + Juliet universe (Q124325720)), for example. The same is the case for The Great Mouse Detective and the novel it is based on (Basil universe (Q124026015) and The Great Mouse Detective universe (Q100658686)). I don't doubt that film and literary work are set in different fictional universes, but this points into the direction of creating an own fictional universe for every work and I don't think that we want that. If we decide to delete one fictional universe item because it is of little use we should delete all of these items and make it clear on the relevant project pages that these are not wanted. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion about notability criteria for fictional universes here: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_universes#Notability_criteria_for_fictional_universes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete insufficient sources provided showing it exists as a recognized concept Dronebogus (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126886436

No. 3 Middle School of Lingshan County (Q126886436): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax, see discussion on [4] Lemonaka (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126936162

Q126936162: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable news article given an item to make another item have structural need. No one is writing serious sources references on this specific (online?) news article from 2008. Add references in the other item about this article, fine, but as a standalone item not needed. William Graham (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep as creator, it is from a "serious and public" source, per Wikidata:Notability. --RAN (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is about some other person or group writing something about the item. Again, there is not a person who has written a source reference describing this specific news article published on a specific date in 2008. A news article being in print or published online does not make it notable in and of itself. If it did I would create an item for each news article about city council meetings in my extremely small city published in my city's extremely small weekly newspaper. William Graham (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidata:Notabilty is simply "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Perhaps you are confusing it with Wikipedia:Notabilty. There is nothing in Wikidata:Notabilty that demands that a news article be cited by another news article to meet Wikidata:Notabilty. If it were we would have to delete over 100,000 scientific papers that have no incoming citations and we would have to delete over 10,000 obituaries that no incoming citations. We would probably also have to delete about 500,000 obscure books we have entries for, there are no books or scholarly articles written about these obscure books. As for "city council meetings", by all means add them to Wikinews or index them in Wikidata if you want to spend a huge amount of your time working on that. History is preserved by those who take the time to record it. Note, for instance, that all of MTVnews was recently deleted from the Internet. See: https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/mtv-news-website-archives-pulled-offline-1236047163/ --RAN (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the imprecise language. Corrections made above with strikethrough. William Graham (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment should be considered together with Matheson Lang Gardens (Q126724843) (Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q126724843). --Dorades (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as not notable, see William Graham's explanation above. --Dorades (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Matheson Lang Gardens (Q126724843) is using described by source (P1343) inappropriately; as described at Property talk:P1343, this property is intended to be used for "printed dictionaries and encyclopedias" (i.e. sources which are already independently notable), and constraints are supposed to explicitly prohibit the use of this property for web pages and news articles. (I'm not sure why this isn't being flagged as a violation.) Generally speaking, notability flows from sources to the topics described by those sources, not vice versa. Omphalographer (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like that narrow definition of described_by_source has been rejected, read the property talk page. It makes no sense to rename it to described_by_encyclopedia and then create described_by_news_article and described_by_obituary and described_by_scholarly_article, after all the name is "described by source". Same with main_subject, it was created with the intent of holding one entry, but has been expanded to house multiple keywords, no need to create secondary_subject and tertiary_subject. Creating multiple highly specific properties has been rejected multiple times, we retask existing properties. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I need something like this as a reference I don't make the reference a separate item, I just use whatever properties are necessary in the reference. I would probably create an item for a book I intended to use as a reference in several items. Unlike academic articles, newspaper articles don't typically contain reference sections. Peter James (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have over 5,000 news articles including obituaries. There is no requirement that Wikidata items contain a reference section to be "serious and public". We have entries for over 100,000 books that do not contain reference sections. There is no such requirement at Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The arguments for keeping this item seem to be circular and rely on pointing out other entries with the same issue, which isn't a valid reason to keep items. Especially not in absence of other reasons. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What distinguishes this entry for a news article from the other >5,000 that we have entries for? What rules would you come up with to determine which ones we have to delete and which ones we are going to keep. If we have rules, we need to apply them universally to avoid selection bias. --RAN (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete no crosswiki links, plus a lack if discernible structural purpose Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q81291303

Thamizhpparithi Maari (Q81291303): Indian academician, writer and wikipedian: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Non-notable person Belbury (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Have a sitelink. Need to be deleted on tawiki first. Fralambert (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a subpage in the project namespace. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q76304869

Thalassa Sophie de Burgh-Milne (Q76304869): (born 1985): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is my name and my personal information which I do not want online. I am currently in the process of having Google and other pages delete my information as well. Thank you. --Edward2024 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward2024 Best ask a oversight to delete the item as stated in Wikidata:Living people. I highly doubt it will be deleted here. Fralambert (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is "an oversight" and how do I ask them to delete it please? Sorry, I have not used Wiki before. 148.252.132.30 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata:Oversight is the policy; the email is oversight@wikidata.org (or contact one of the oversighters via a link on the policy page). Although I don't think the oversight feature is approved for this use, all oversighters are also administrators and can delete items according to other policies. Peter James (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Public figure, if they want we can reduce the birthday to as it appears in the gov record for their corporate position. There is no privacy for a corporate officers in the UK, for a reason. The gov wants accountability for corporate officers to prevent malfeasance. That is why they have to be registered. --RAN (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The Peerage person ID (P4638) is not a reliable source and should only be used as an identifier in most cases. I opposed mass deletion of that data import but would have preferred deletion for some categories (e.g. any living person who is not a hereditary peer, life peer or baronet and does not have another reason for notability from another source or Wikipedia article). Companies House officer ID (P5297) is not an indication of notability; information may be available but that doesn't mean it should be made more visible by adding it to Wikidata where it is not maintained . Most people in that database are not public figures and there is no reason to add their information to Wikidata. One of the companies is currently notable as it has a Wikipedia article, but the article has been tagged for notability since 2016. We don't consistently have items for directors of FTSE 100 companies and where we do they are not always linked and are not watched for vandalism; the name of Q69580854, the CEO of Tesco, was changed in 2021 and it had not been reverted until today. I don't think it is private information, as it is from public sources and not the result of hacking or any breach of confidentiality, or even anything that was legitimately published but not intended to be widely available. The living people policy and the ability to maintain Wikidata are still reasons to delete. Peter James (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Peter James, this is my first time using this page so I don't really understand the comments above. It looks like someone is saying the page about me can't be deleted. How is that possible? I know I am on Companies House, but it doesn't mean I should be forced to have an additional page with my name on it - or have times changed so much that I have no control over pages online that mention me? I have managed to delete several pages already this week, but this Wiki page is confusing. Please let me know if there is anything I can do, thank you so much. 148.252.132.30 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the outcome of this discussion. Many requests to delete are not successful, but that is usually because there is structural need for an item, such as linking academic articles with their authors. Here the links are only genealogical and from items that are only exist from other genealogical items - and if that is notability, most people are notable. Peter James (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone wants to be a private person, they probably should not be giving interviews. See: https://www.goabroad.com/interviews/thalassa-de-burgh-milne-director-of-intern-madrid How is someone with the screenname "Edward" wanting to delete info on Thalassa Sophie de Burgh-Milne? They wrote: "my name and my personal information", but their screenname is Edward. --RAN (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q95974446

Balsamic Roasted Turkey Salad (Q95974446): salad: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Just a salad with two specific ingredients; seems to lack any notability. --Yaron Koren (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Commons sitelink (WD:N #1). –Morneo06 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Morneo06: Not voting, just wanted to bring it to your attention that bullet 4 under criterion 1 calls out Commons categories as not establishing criterion 1. William Graham (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am interpreting this one differently than you do as from my understanding this applies to Category items only, not regular items that have a Commons category sitelink. Morneo06 (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clunkily worded. My interpretation of 1.4 is that P31=mediawiki category with only a commons link is not notable. And if it's a main item with only a commons sitelink it should be to an album page and not to a category. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, poorly worded. I always interpreted it as do not create a Wikidata entry called Category:Foo, just add Category:Foo to the Wikidata item Foo using Multilingual_sites. --RAN (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last part is not right. Commons category links go on the main item unless a separate category item is necessary, either because the same category exists on another wiki, or because there is a Commons gallery for the same topic. The only sitelink on a main item can be a link to a Commons category (and over a quarter of all the Commons sitelinks are on items with no other sitelinks).
The idea was to prevent people from creating lots of items for intersection categories like commons:Category:Men facing left and looking at viewer in Los Angeles which are not useful for us and are unlikely to ever have any other sitelinks.
- Nikki (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The problem with recipes is that they have infinite variations. Just think of all the variants of pasta out there and that's just one category of food. Without some indication that the food is somewhat common I see no reason to have an item for it. Infrastruktur (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a huge number of permutations, but they are not infinite and only some can be sourced to "reliable and public" sources as this one is. --RAN (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126952502

Seyyed Mohammad Amin Mousavi Sagharchi (Q126952502): researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. CptViraj (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Structural need as author of two academic article. Fralambert (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly notable. 178.37.233.37 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q6495391

late modern period (Q6495391): the era from ca. 1800 until the present: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

This is a Wikipedia-created neologism that isn't actually used by historians. History of (primarily Europe) 1800 today is a part of the modern period with the early modern period as its initial stage. It's simply a misunderstanding based on sloppy research. --Peter Isotalo (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your opinion regarding this topic is: the Wikidata item is definitely notable as it got numerous sitelinks. --Morneo06 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three current periods of history that are the subject of articles (not necessarily in the same language) - 1500 to present (modern period), 1789 (or circa 1800) to present (late modern period), and 1945 to present (contemporary history). Is there an alternative to "late modern period" that would still distinguish them? Peter James (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is an absolute mess, mostly because a lot of Wikipedians think that periodization is static and can be nailed down to specific dates regardless of region, context or discipline. There's also the misunderstanding that "early modern" means there has to be a "late modern", but that's not how it actually works. It's used more to signify a "pre-modern modern" period, as in a transition between medieval and modern. And it's generally not applicable to all parts of the world. It's used outside Europe in some contexts, but it's primarily a European thang.
Most of the linked articles were not about "late modern", but rather "contemporary" or the equivalent term in various languages. I've removed all of those as there's not indication they are the same.
The term "modern period" among historians is used either for c. 1500 until today or c. 1800 until today. It varies depending on region, context and discipline. That's why it's extremely problematic to try to set exact dates or years because there's absolutely no consensus about this among historians.
From what I understand, the only really established use of the term "late modern period" seems to be among English literature scholars. At least that's what I've been able to tell from sources. Peter Isotalo (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a way to distinguish them; there seems to be a change in the definition of "modern" over time and one option is to have "modern" as starting around 1800 (some use 1789, others use 1800), "early modern" from around 1500 (or 1450) to the start of the modern period, and just use the label "early modern and modern" for the item covering both. It seems wrong to connect articles on history from 1789 to contemporary history (Q186075) just because the English label there is a literal translation of the article title. Peter James (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't "have to be" anything. Historical periodization aren't particularly exact and vary depending on what kind of history is being described (social, economic, cultural, etc) and isn't applicable to all regions of the world. What you're suggesting is to fabricate exactness. It would kinda be like Wikimedia "officially" deciding that we end the pi sequence at some arbitrary decimal.
A lot of the really major historical periods simply don't have exact boundaries and we can't just impose one because we want to. Specifying exact dates or years is reserved for stuff like wars, royal dynasties or states. With major historical periods we can only agree which one comes before the others, or provide very rough intervals. In the case of the early modern period, the start can be from the 14th to the 17th century depending on discipline and even major journals. Peter Isotalo (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So comtemporary history can be history from 1789 according to the French Wikipedia article? There is also https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/subjects/history/modern-history-ma/ with "Themes in Late Modern History (c. 1776 - 2001)". And sometimes modern history is only up to 1945, not to present (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Medieval_or_Early_Modern/1GQHCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA15, also the Penguin Dictionary of Modern History, which is 1789-1945, and others). Then the question is whether to group the sitelinks by translating the name (although I don't know how that would work with some languages such as Korean, and identical topics would be connected to different items depending on the language) or by using approximate periods of time. Peter James (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what this or that Wikipedia article says. That's circular reasoning as far as I'm concerned. I understand that Wikidata is dependent on what the other projects are doing, but I've been exploring this problem for quite some time now.
"Late modern period" is a neologism that basically no one uses outside of Wikipedia. If you want to see some details on the matter, check out the discussion over at w:en:Talk:Late_modern_period and w:en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. If you want to see how insignificant the term is, search JSTOR, Cambridge Core or Oxford Academic for "late modern period". And then try comparing that with "early modern period".
This would never be tolerated if it was about the natural sciences, like someone inventing their own classification for spotted owls or tiger sharks or whatever. It shouldn't be tolerated for history either. Peter Isotalo (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Isotalo: If you have content issues with articles on a Wikipedia project, I suggest you focus your attention on making changes on those Wikipedias, instead of Wikidata. William Graham (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to work on the five projects that have a "late modern period".
Problem is just that is seems that WikiData users aren't simply following Wikipedia content but trying to give this term legs by attaching unrelated Wikipedia articles like contemporary history to this object. Peter Isotalo (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the German language, there is a equivalent term Spätmoderne (cf. https://www.zdl.org/wb/wortgeschichten/Sp%c3%a4tmoderne), but its definition is not what the Wikidata item in question is referring to. Adding this to emphasize that the term itself has a defined meaning in German. --Dorades (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Spätmoderne" refers to late modernity. Not the same thing at all. Peter Isotalo (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And still you would translate "late modern period" as "Spätmoderne". --Dorades (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you've linked and German Wikipedia disagrees with you on that one. Are you sure you understand the difference between modernity and the modern period? Peter Isotalo (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I've linked distinguishs between 1) "spezifische (gesellschafts- und kulturgeschichtliche) Phase der westlichen Moderne" (late modernity) and 2) "Epochen- und Stilrichtung in Literatur, Kunst und Architektur" (late modern epoch). Maybe you disagree based on translation issues, then have a look at the title of one of Anthony Giddens' books, where the distinction is obvious: "Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age" (https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2660). --Dorades (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue about historical terms, but not that >10 sitelinks were simply blanked and they should be cared before deletion of the item (otherwise they will just rejoin somewhere else). --Infovarius (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the sitelinks and also it would require to modify somehow all items using this. —Ismael Olea (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an acceptable way of insisting on the maintenance of status quo.
If you two are so concerned about orphaned items, suggest a solution instead of just maintaining factual inaccuracies. Above all, you can't just reinstate links to items in projects that are clearly not supporting this term. WikiData has no business pushing its own agenda in terms of encyclopedic content. Peter Isotalo (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but if you are interested in fixing an item then you acquire the responsibility to fix any incoming/outcoming link and to create the new items needed to keep the interlink coherence. Obviously you need to be sure which should be the proper item for each sitelink. I'm not against corrections, just please keep the information integrity. —Ismael Olea (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly biased and unwarranted gatekeeping. You are placing the onus on me to prove a negative. You're even restoring links to content that don't even translate to "late modern". Peter Isotalo (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't understand the deletion request. In French historiography "époque/période contemporaine", which is what the item is about, is a perfectly valid historical division. The various external identifiers are a solid proof that the item isn't simply a Wikipedia made-up term. If the English label "late modern history" doesn't refers to anything, then simply change it. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q88904799

Q88904799: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This does not appear to be in use, and it is redundant since it does the same as Q3103421 Pigeon Bananas (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q109923899

Q109923899: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This page was created as part of a cross-wiki self-promotion campaign, with a cluster of sockpuppets creating pages for non-notable members of a family (Please see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sepidnoor/Archive). I have managed to have some of them deleted at local wikis, and nominated them for deletion on Wikidata. They include:

--HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional entries linked to this self-promotion campaign that are at the moment qualified for deletion:
HeminKurdistan (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127299505

The Waiting Room (Q127299505): music venue in Stoke Newington, London, UK: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don't see why a music venue shouldn't pass WDN2: https://www.timeout.com/london/nightlife/the-waiting-room Piecesofuk (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126948363

Ash Arora (Q126948363): Internet personality: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, she made it to one of the Forbes lists. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127406420

Fawzi Mesmar (Q127406420): Jordanian creative director and game designer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It does not meet standards and policies, and focuses only on promoting itself. He tried to write an article about himself on the Arabic Wikipedia, but it was deleted. — Osama Eid (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

مرحباً @Osps7 المشكلة انه محقق أحد شروط الملحوظية في ويكي بيانات بانه مرتبط بوصلة على ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية. Mohammed Qays (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: Probably non-notable website and individual web page items

Extended content
  1. Q107040567 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q107041025 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q107041031 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q107041015 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q107041019 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q107041016 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q107041011 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q107041026 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q107041021 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q107041023 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q107041022 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q107041012 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q107041010 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q107041030 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q107041029 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

All created by Hkbulibdmss; pinging for courtesy. No sitelinks, no use in other items, and no clear signs of notability otherwise. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 17:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these records have websites. Please take a look again. Thank you. Hkbulibdmss (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkbulibdmss Looking at these items I'm a little confused, are they supposed to be items for websites? Because the descriptions don't always make this clear and several of them don't have "instance of: website" or similar.StarTrekker (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We will add "instance of: website" later. Hkbulibdmss (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q94171870

anthropomorphic pigeon (Q94171870): pigeon with human-like traits: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Not notable. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. How can a type of fictional character not be notable? If it wasn't used at all then you might have an argument, but did you even bother checking? I do think the image is pointless decoration. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep This has recently been closed as keep due to structural need, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/05/13#Q94171870 Piecesofuk (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it should be handled in a more general fashion. Having to create a separate "anthropomorphic X" entity for every species which has been represented as a humanoid character in media (and there's a lot of those!) seems like it could get out of hand pretty quickly. Omphalographer (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's a tricky question. People should be using Property:P10241 instead in my opinion.StarTrekker (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127684590

Dmytro Farion (Q127684590): (1922-2004): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability requirements Friend (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents — Yuri V (о•в) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Simply, does not meet Wikidata:Notability. No sources or knowledge bases linked. It is just adding all family tree of unnotable individuals. --Friend (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The arguments for keeping this make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. How exactly is deleting this a war against her parents? Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable (3rd criterion), but we need source, especially in Iryna Farion (Q2034898) 178.37.233.37 00:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127629553

Yaroslava Slipec (Q127629553): (c. 1925-2019): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability requirements Friend (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents. — Yuri V (о•в) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
 Delete Simply, does not meet Wikidata:Notability. No sources or knowledge bases stated. It is just adding all family tree of unnotable individuals. --Friend (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Items about people don't get a special pass from having to follow them either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable (3rd criterion), but we need source, especially in Iryna Farion (Q2034898) 178.37.233.37 00:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127605536

Mason Remaley (Q127605536): game developer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable individual. Marbletan (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127603408

No sitelink, no reference. 2001:9E8:2C3F:FF00:188F:1739:295A:46A8 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127686769

Q127686769: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locally quite known personality. Whether Wikipedia in the local la guage should be full of articles as much as the most important Wikipedias (english, french, italian, ...), probably she will be present. --Agnellino (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q58746840

Terry Hazen at the 2011 DOE JGI User Meeting (Q58746840): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No references or apparent structural need; only identifier does not resolve Quesotiotyo (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DOI links to the SciVee (Q7433407) website but the page is not found. There are 69 more items with the same DOI prefix and I checked a few and most are also not found, although at least one page Evolution - the Molecular Landscape Interviews with FRANCES ARNOLD & JACK SZOSTAK interviewed by RICHARD SEVER (Q59384138) is still there but displays "this plug-in isn't supported" as the site requires the Adobe Flash Player plug-in. Some were created with "invoked by SourceMD:ORCIDator" in the summary and the most recent addition to Wikidata, CUAHSI Cyberseminar: John Pomeroy, University of Saskatchewan, 9/17/2010 (Q122420406), is in ORCID but says "other", not "journal article" so the P31 statements are probably wrong. Also they are not cited anywhere and the titles suggest some of them were spam. List of items with the DOI prefix:

I don't know if all items should be deleted but the titles of Q56602129 Q57481124 Q58898689 Q61795274 Q61846806 Q63185263 Q63508157 Q118199286 suggest they are probably not relevant to science or to Wikidata. Peter James (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these entities should clearly be deleted; they don't identify real scientific articles. Having a DOI assigned does not automatically confer notability.
Most of the titles which resemble scientific articles are copied from real articles with different DOIs; for instance, New Nanostructured Li2S/Silicon Rechargeable Battery with High Specific Energy (Q59756425) (allegedly doi:10.4016/27363.01) is a doppelgänger of New nanostructured Li2S/silicon rechargeable battery with high specific energy (Q46233204) (doi:10.1021/nl100504q). Omphalographer (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very problematic. Seems deliberate.StarTrekker (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q128210950

Samuel Joly (Q128210950): Drummer from Quebec, Canada: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Eligibility Rockpeterson (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q128123357

Baddies in Tech (Q128123357): An organization that provides a safe space for Black women in tech: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Eligibility Rockpeterson (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request regarding Tech SEO Summit

Batch 1
  1. Q127326900 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q127790498 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q127777171 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q127776886 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q127776614 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q127775949 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q125187894 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q125188039 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q125188154 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q125188221 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q125188289 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q125188412 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q125188776 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q125389888 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q125580428 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 2
  1. Q128191710 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q125554344 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q126525304 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q125534860 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q125523927 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124868557 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124880999 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124881061 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124881085 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124881107 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124881123 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124884465 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q125123076 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q125188486 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q125397892 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spend quite some time adding popular online marketing podcasts (see my contribution list) that are all in talk show format, episodes, hosts, prominent talk show guests and background information and multiple of them now show inbound links from this deletion request. Seeing this is quite frustrating. I am quite new to wikidata and don't fully understand why you would want to delete this information. From what I understand some of my entries miss sitelinks to match the notability guidelines and I need to connect them e.g. add the podcasts e.g to the list of german podcasts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_podcasts) so they fullfill the notability guideline. I am willing to work on that.
I also want to make some points about the notability of some items of your deletion list:
Q127775949 - Michael King is the person that exposed one of the biggest leaks about the Google Algorithm from the last years, together with Rand Fishkin (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michael+King%22+google+leak)
Q127790498 - Roxana Stingu is quite a public figure in the women in tech movement.
Q125523927 - Audisto and it's CTO / CEO are quite known for their work regarding tech SEO with citation of work published by Audisto in the Wikipedia (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+audisto) going back to 2015. They are especially known for their detailed guides (https://audisto.com/guides/)
-- Q125397892 - This is the german version of an article originally published by Audisto and written by Tobias Schwarz (Q124868557) and Christian Müller (https://audisto.com/guides/canonical/), that is also cited in the English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_link_element#cite_note-Audisto_GmbH-3)
Most of the other speakers listed at the Tech SEO Summit entry could also be connected to popular podcasts. I would also be willing to work on that. PodcastMage (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added multiple contributions and references from and to entities of the two batches indicating the affiliation with already existing entities within Wikidata and Wikipedia. For some of the entities there are citations of their work within Wikipedia, however I do not know if the citations should be changed to use the Cite_Q-Template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q) in this case. PodcastMage (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity on its own is not relevant for judging the notability of an item in the Wikidata sense. Linking items together that are not notable without these links is also not a good way to prove notability. Also, self published sources are usually not considered serious as demanded by WD:N #2. Can you add independent coverage from serious sources, e. g. from mainstream media etc.? --Dorades (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got the point. So with independent coverage from serious sources you mean this (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q127775949&diff=2222443545&oldid=2222044321), right? Is this the right spot to add these references and is this amount of references adequate (there are plenty more out there, but I only added the ones I considered most relevant to prove the point) or should there be more? Is this enough in terms of notability for you to keep Michael King and how about the fact that he talks about exactly the topic he got the news coverage for at the Tech SEO Summit? If this changes your opinion about some of the items, please update your batches to reflect that and I will see if similar references can be found for the remaining items. Note: First I was only interested in the podcasts and the corresponding items I added, but now you got me hooked to prove the point for more items of your deletion request because to me they are relevant background, but I totally get that they need to be considered relevant by other people e.g. you as well. PodcastMage (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added references (that are in my opinion serious sources) regarding the notability of Audisto (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q125523927&diff=2222723884&oldid=2212511540) and also it's CEO (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q125187894&diff=2222541861&oldid=2222008770). PodcastMage (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, references should support a specific claim, e. g. when someone is called "SEO expert" the respective source should be used for the statement that someone has the occupation (P106): SEO specialist (Q4048723). There is no limit on how many sources can be added (as far as I know), but some contributors think that a handful of references is enough to support one single claim. Only considering the most relevant ones is a good approach in my opinion.
The notability for Michael King (Q127775949) seems borderline to me, based on the references you added. But for me it's enough to mark my RFD for Michael King (Q127775949) as  Withdrawn. I can't judge the reliability of Website Boosting (Q120468799), thus I am also marking Audisto (Q125523927) as  Withdrawn. I am not convinced by the references for Sören Bendig (Q125187894). In the end, it's not up to me to decide to keep or to delete these items, but to the admins. --Dorades (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, this helps me a lot! From my understanding adding the founders and the CEO of a company would be considered "structural need", as it completes important information about a company and therefore makes it more useful, right? With the same intention I added individual episodes to podcasts where persons that I consider important or that already had Wikidata entries appeared. Regarding Sören Bendig (Q125187894): I also added the information that he was deputy chairman and later chairman of one of the committies of the German Association for the Digital Economy (Q1008864), a association where large companies like Deutsche Telekom, ProSiebenSat.1 Media and RTL Deutschland are members (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q1008864). Regarding Michael King (Q127775949): I will try to add more references about him in the future to address your doubts. Regarding Website Boosting (Q120468799): It is a well known magazine in the German online marketing szene since 2010 and with 17,500 copies printed every two months. In addition the editor in chief is a well known professor who founded two degree programs at the FH Würzburg - University of Applied Sciences. I will also try to add more references about him in the future. Hopefully I find some time at the weekend. PodcastMage (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When working on the references for Michael King (Q127775949): I discovered that he is also known as a rapper and there is another Wikidata entry for him Mic King (Q112819455). I think those two entries should be merged. I added some of his music profiles to the first entity. PodcastMage (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the two entities of Michael King. In addition I added references for both, René Dhemant (Q127776614) and Tobias Schwarz (Q124868557). René Dhemant is a lecturer at the AFS Academy, which was launched in 2012 as the first state-approved training course for search engine optimization (https://www.websiteboosting.com/fileadmin/user_upload/2013/_19/PDF/028-029_afs_website_boosting_019.pdf) in Germany. Tobias Schwarz was also a lecturer there in the early days of the academy, as the article shows. I have added the relevant references. I have also added further references for René Dhermant, such as his participation in podcasts, and also some for Tobias Schwarz. I will work on the remaining profiles as soon as I find a little more time, as this is all quite time consuming. PodcastMage (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I finished my work adding references and background to the main entries of this deletion request and my opinion is to keep the entries as most of them refer to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references. I consider the rest of the entries to fulfill a structural need as they are all clearly connected to other entries that are not marked for deletion and make these entries more valuable. All statements I found in the entries were valid and understandable to me. Most of the persons within this deletion request are well known conference speakers, have appearances as experts in their field of work in multiple podcasts (all listed within the linked podchaser profiles; not all of them are present at Wikidata), are lecturers or have demonstrably held positions in organizations that are already present on Wikidata. If individual entries are still considered not notable, I would welcome separate deletion requests being made for these entries instead of continuing to pursue this bulk deletion request. My work is done here and I'll move on to work on other things now. I consider the state of this ready for a decision by the admins. PodcastMage (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124150929

enVVeno Medical Corporation (Q124150929): Medical Company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q105698122

COST Conference (Q105698122): conference series: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wild mixture of various irrelevant events without clear contunitiy MGChecker (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q10508087

Granhammar (Q10508087): farm in Upplands-Bro Municipality, Sweden: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It was never a human settlement (Q486972) it was always manor estate (Q2116450) as described in Granhammar Castle (Q5595755). Maundwiki (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC) --Maundwiki (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears that one is the building and the other is the land (estate). You can merge if you do not want them apart. We often do this, there may have been multiple building in the history of the land/estate. --RAN (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q7233428

possible carcinogen (Q7233428): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item that is linked only to en.wiki redirect, no links from other WD items Wostr (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Currently this item has no real links. I think "possible carcinogen" is the wrong way to model substances. In principle, a given substance either is or isn't a carcinogen (Q187661), even if we don't currently know which. It would be better to say instance of (P31) carcinogen (Q187661) with qualifier possibly (Q30230067). 73.223.72.200 04:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127592033

Huw Rowlands (Q127592033): geographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Created around the same time as Q127592004 so probably related. Xezbeth (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable and linked to notable thesis item (Scenarios of Encounter: Place, Performance, and Commemoration in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa and London (Q127592736) 178.37.233.37 00:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124693233

Mohammad Sabeti Monfared (Q124693233): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q27987555

Q27987555: church building in Gorla Minore, Italy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-existent building Yiyi .... (talk!) 08:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yiyi Are you saying this is a made-up building? It's in heritage registers... Ping @Nvitucci the creator of this item. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojtěch Dostál It could be a church with a different name, but in Gorla Minore there aren't buildings with this name AND all the other churches in Gorla Minore are yet on Wikidata. I live nearby and I also did some research: definitely it doesn't exist. Yiyi .... (talk!) 12:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if it existed but was demolished? Then it would still deserve to have an item... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vojtěch Dostál I think Q116943131 could be the same church. I have no informations about churches demolished in Gorla Minore. Yiyi .... (talk!) 08:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an erroneous duplicate of the preceeding QID Q27987554 Uschoen (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q111243654

Voorhees (Q111243654): male given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a real given name. --StarTrekker (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I was able to find 16 people on Wikidata with this given name (though admittedly, none with it as the first or primary given name). --Quesotiotyo (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quesotiotyo: Are you sure these are actual given names, not just someone having two or more surnames?StarTrekker (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarTrekker Yes, as the family names for these people were all clearly evident (and only one was a married woman, otherwise they likely would not have more than one surname).
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quesotiotyo: That is very untrue, it's not unusual at all for people to have more than one surname, in several cultures it's even the standard. Even among English speakers it's not unusul for persons to have both a paternal and a maternal family name before marriage.StarTrekker (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q129566094

Prawo Jazdy 360 (Q129566094): website: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable (as in Wikidata:Notability) --159.205.179.12 10:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: 277 Systematic internaliser (SI) items

query

Se background below for what a Systematic internaliser is.

These are the reasons:

  • 1) These SIs can change over time and I have not seen anyone interested in keeping this information updated since the import was done.
  • 2) they are a role on an existing firm and should never have been imported as separate items IMO. This import was probably not sufficiently discussed before it was done.
  • 3) The level of detail in the SI system is not relevant for Wikidata or the WMF projects. It is similar to importing every bench in every protected area in Sweden into Wikidata as an item. That does not make much sense to keep in Wikidata.

If anyone would like to keep this data I suggest they create a financial Wikibase and model the whole thing there based on the companies/markets in Wikidata.

I understand a lot of time and work has gone into this import. I suggest to the importer that they discuss imports more before forging ahead to avoid deletions in the future.

Here is the background: "[...] investment firms can choose to become an SI in a given financial instrument or group of financial instruments. As of 1 September 2018, investment firms will be mandatorily classified as an SI in those financial instruments which they have traded frequently, systematically and substantially. The SI status will be evaluated continuously in terms of business needs and regulatory requirements." source

So SI is a status of a company in a certain market. It was introduced by regulatory bodies in 2018 AFAIK.

It would be a lot of work to to keep this information up to date. Take a look at the products the SI-status apply, see [5] for an example (there are a total of 24 products listed there)

Notifying users which have discussed the import before @BrokenSegue, @Vladimir Alexiev @User:Nataliya Keberle --So9q (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of possible items with MIC market code (P7534) is unlikely to be close to "every bench in every protected area in Sweden" (unless Sweden has very few benches). There is also an identifier for them, which is why the items were created; benches are unlikely to be registered with a central authority. I agree they should probably not be separate items, but the identifiers should be moved to existing items or new items. Peter James (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am firmly against deletion. If MIC found them important enough to issue a MIC ID, then they should be important enough for WD as well.
  • "they are a role on an existing firm and should never have been imported as separate items"
  • "not seen anyone interested in keeping this information updated": We've updated MIC import 3x. And can you point to any WD subset of over 1k entities that is completely up to date with its source data?
  • "SI is a status of a company in a certain market": That's not true. SIs are a specific sort of stock exchange or market. Many financial institutions perform various services, including specific kinds of exchanges and markets. "SI" is an important role to warrant its own type, just like "stock exchange" or "pension fund"
  • "The level of detail in the SI system is not relevant for Wikidata": Do you also argue that "there are too many exchanges", thus they are not interesting?
  • "I suggest they create a financial Wikibase": this is just discrimination! Why would you be the person to decide how much financial info is appropriate for WD?
Cheers! -- Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
  1. even if they are different companies, they still don't seem relevant to have in WD (from my perspective).
  2. the first example you mention is interesting. I found the scope of the BBVA when acting as a SI. Reading that it is clear that SI is a role that is chosen by the entity:
BBVA has voluntarily decided to act as SI for certain bonds and other forms of securitised debt and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts, in accordance with article 18 of MiFIR.
So a SI is not a company per se. It is a role and that role ONLY applies to certain products and services. They differ between SIs.
IF we were to keep this information a data consumer would DEFINITELY want to know which type of products this entity acts as SI for. In the case of Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Bank (Q806189) the import was done from a database that did not contain links between the bank and the SI role (voluntarily chosen by the bank). Without this information I would consider this a good example of a bad import. That is an import that inflates the number of items in Wikidata but fails to connect them to other items in a way that makes good sense to keep over time.
I invite others to judge whether these role-items are worth having or if they could be better reduced to a single statement like so on the entity that takes on that role according to some source like the one I provided above:
role -> systematic interalizer -> start time = x, applies to = product x, applies to = service y, MIC market code = BBVA, etc.
Please note that it is much easier to polute a database with half-ass imports than it is to find a good source and add statements like the above for each SI in the database. IMO this should have been discussed in a WikiProject Finance (does not exist yet) or WikiProject Economics, but I assume it has not, please correct me if I'm wrong and provide a link to the discussion about modeling in that case.
I suggest we delete these garbage items and use this an example of how not to do an import. So9q (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q125573888

Athostvz (Q125573888): Brazilian musician, DJ and record producer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promo Yann (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold Currently notable due to etwiki link, but there's a DR there, so awaiting that decision. Only incoming link is video clip by the artist, so that can be ignored to establish notability. Mbch331 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124366123

Extension:OHITool (Q124366123): abandoned MediaWiki extension: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Obsolete | Jaider Msg 21:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The item for an unsupported/abandoned MediaWiki extension, WD:N criterion 1.9 does not necessary define such an item as notable. @P858snake: what is your opinion (pinging as the item's creator)? --Wolverène (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view, Just because a extension/skin is "archived" (I'm not the biggest fan of how the archiving is handled, but that's a different tangent) doesn't make it any less of a extension, and essentially still structural entity to build the structure of mediawiki extensions. P858snake (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q50375445

Ago Endre (Q50375445): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Bot-created Estopedist1 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May be mentioned in Kes on kes? Eesti 2000 (an Estonian biographical dictionary? see the reference for P31), I am not sure I am able to check if he was mentioned, but if there is an article about him he has to be notable. --Wolverène (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable as linked to Sirje Endre (Q12375095) and sourced per above (in Sirje Endre (Q12375095) item father (P22) statement). 178.37.233.37 00:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request of c:Category:Personnalités présentes aux Quatre jours de Dunkerque 2013 subcategories

Batch 1
  1. Q124057738 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124057740 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124057742 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124057809 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124057839 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124057853 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124057911 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124057919 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124058103 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124058144 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124058151 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124058152 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124058245 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124058266 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124058270 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 2
  1. Q124058287 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124058299 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124058303 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124058329 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124058362 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124058462 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124058463 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124058465 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124058466 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124058475 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124058484 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124058487 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124058500 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124058504 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124058505 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 3
  1. Q124058506 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124058507 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124058512 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124058554 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124058618 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124058634 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124058639 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124058640 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124058644 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124058645 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124058646 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124058647 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124058649 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124058650 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124058651 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 4
  1. Q124058652 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124058662 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124068700 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124068785 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124068790 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124068792 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124068794 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124068842 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124068847 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124068915 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124068916 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124068926 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124068929 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124069146 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124069150 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 5
  1. Q124069151 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124069152 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124069163 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124069222 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124069259 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124069307 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124069360 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124069363 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124069365 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Commons-only categories, not allowed per Wikidata:Notability #1.4. Quesotiotyo (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q123951724

Zhabokrek (Q123951724): street in Sofia, Bulgaria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Mistake in OSM, meged in Q123949594 Nk (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q123951730

Iztochna tangenta blvd. (Q123951730): street in Sofia, Bulgaria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability - this is a proposed reorganization of Q123951730 Nk (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - this is a proposed reorganization of Q123946927 Nk --Nk (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q89206661

The Adventures of BoOzy’ OS (Q89206661): French animated television series: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No such "television series" appears to exist. References all appear to describe BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem (Q17622139), which is a single animated short, not a series. Omphalographer (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: People at an event Commons categories

Batch 1
  1. Q123969446 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q123987654 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q123988094 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124045054 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q123969446 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124045072 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124045076 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124045066 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124045059 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124045071 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124045063 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q123987654 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124045061 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124045064 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124045053 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 2
  1. Q123988094 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124045078 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124045074 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124045057 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124045056 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124044981 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124045065 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124045058 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124044961 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124045044 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124219939 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124044977 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124044988 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124045060 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124045055 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 3
  1. Q124045062 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124045045 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124044928 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124044953 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124044959 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124045073 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124045018 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124045013 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124045070 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124045050 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124045067 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124045049 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124045069 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124045052 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124045047 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 4
  1. Q123693282 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124011596 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124011605 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q123988054 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q124011518 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124011537 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124011368 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124011035 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124011054 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124011544 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124011521 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124011465 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124011464 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q124011316 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q124011365 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 5
  1. Q124011357 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q124011412 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q124011354 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q124011366 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q123988121 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124011650 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124011050 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124011056 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124011039 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124011009 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124011583 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124011029 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q124010889 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q123988057 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q123969745 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 6
  1. Q123988162 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q123988165 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q123999914 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q123999891 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q123975452 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q124025287 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q124025276 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q124025263 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q124025834 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q124025697 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q124025470 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q124025467 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Commons category only. @PMG: as creator of most or all of them. William Graham (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree to put all of them in one group.
  • Stuff like Q124044959 - in my opinion its a proper usage of category combines topics (P971) or facet of (P1269). But if there will be voices that it should be not present - fine.
  • Stuff like Q123987654 - sorry, but this is standard event. What is exactly issue here?
  • Stuff like Q124011521 - this is about esport team on esport championship event. What exactly is difference between this entry and Germany at the 2020 Summer Olympics (Q42914232)?
  • Stuff that I totaly don`t understand its added here - stuff like Q123975452. Like "we know that you are allowed on wikipedia world because you participated in Summer Olimpics, but we don`t care that this is important aspect of your life, so we want to remove it". Really?
PMG (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the removal report probably concerns a doubt regarding compliance with the rule: "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with this camera (P2033)." This rule isn't entirely clear to me, if I understand it correctly, some of the proposals to be deleted do not contain any data, such as category's main topic (P301). 178.37.233.37 23:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q63724197

Q63724197: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. --Yousiphh (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is nomineted to deletion. She is his mother. Yousiphh (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130210987

Heather Novak-Peterson (Q130210987): artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added due to adding OpenStreetMap node with her public artwork on a parking garage near me:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12147972009
https://imgur.com/artwork-Aqpo3TE
https://imgur.com/artwork-cFtMBiU Cfeast (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there journalistic coverage, e. g. articles in newspapers? --Dorades (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a news article about her that mentions the artwork in question:
https://hconews.com/2019/11/26/heather-novak-peterson/ Cfeast (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another article about her:
https://canvasrebel.com/meet-heather-novak-peterson/ Cfeast (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two links look like sponsored content and a republished press release. I'm not sure they're especially serious. William Graham (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q129175828

Hamed Atefi (Q129175828): Iranian football player: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is (transfermarkt id) 178.37.233.37 23:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130238784

Statistical Decision Functions. (Q130238784): scientific article published in March 1951: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is a review of the book, not the book itself so worthless for us to store So9q (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the merits of your argument. But if we're going to have an entry on everything that was published in academic journals - and from what I can tell, "was published in an academic journal" is a criterion for inclusion - then that includes the book reviews. We have a lot of book reviews. If you want to delete the book reviews, you'll have to bring that up on project chat. DS (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q105966767

Playa Chiquita (Q105966767): beach in Costa Rica: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I don't think this really fits within the scope of the project. There are many, many beaches in Costa Rica. DS (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in travel guides, and notable enough for Wikidata (and possibly useful for Commons). Peter James (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was based on this being Playa Chiquita, but the original label was "beach, COSTA RICA" and it's possible the beach depicted is Playa Punta Uva, not Playa Chiquita. Peter James (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130234847

Jenan Younis (Q130234847): British comedian and physician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Someone claiming to be Dr Younis requested this entry's deletion, but didn't do it properly. This is just a procedural correction; I'll add her reasoning in a moment. DS (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would be grateful if this page could be removed about me (see above)
I was alerted that it was just added.
I am no longer a comedian and no longer a surgeon either and would be grateful if the page could be deleted. I am working full time in the NHS and such pages existing will be considered a breach of professionalism and may result in NHS disciplinary action against me. I don’t know who added the page but would be grateful if it could be taken down as soon as possible. Many thanks
Jenan Younis <email deleted>" DS (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this interview, Dr. Younis is "a BBC New Voices Competition winner and Funny Women finalist", and a search of Google News shows enough media coverage that she might even meet notability criteria for enwiki. I also note the apparent contradiction between "no longer a surgeon" and "working full time in the NHS". If there is indeed a "breach in professionalism" such that it could result in "disciplinary action", surely it was when she began performing standup, or when she organized and launched a MENA-themed comedy festival; our documentation is only a minimal component thereof. DS (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Some IP address just posted a comment at Talk:Q130234847. Samoasambia ✎ 19:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q110108193

Tashir (Q110108193): ancient Armenian historical region in the South Caucasus: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The same as Q4452958 --Yousiphh (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? @Nintendofan885: thoughts? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Loru in Azerbaijani, Lori in Armenian and Georgian. The same geographical and histoeical place. Yousiphh (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130239214

Abcence C&T Corporation (Q130239214): Indian construction and engineering company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, advertisement Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130262936

Erik Laurentz Hogh Pihl (Q130262936): (1925-1998): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Only reference is his memorial service in a local newspaper. A search using the name or his alias doesn't give anything relevant. Dying doesn't make a person notable. Günther Frager (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep While English Wikipedia may only be for people that have achieved some sort of fame, Wikidata allows anyone that can be described by serious and public sources to have an entry, so long as they are not involved in self-promotion. A "local newspaper" is both serious and public, and dead people are not involved in self-promotion, because they are dead. There is also a structural need as a descendant of Sophus Pihl, who does have a biography in Wikipedia. See for example: w:Lincoln family where people can use our resources to educate themselves about family relationships. --RAN (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in the US more than 3,000,000 people die per year. There is no point in having every single person that die or all graduates from Harvard or all the descendants of Gengis Khan.None of them are notable just because they belong to one of these groups. Günther Frager (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Findagrave is able to manage 226 million human entries and 564,000 cemetery entries that I can search in a few seconds and find the one I am looking for. Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Is your argument that an obituary is not "serious" or not "publicly available"? Just because 3,000,000 die each year that doesn't mean that someone will take the time to create those entries. It would take 5.7 years to create 3,000,000 entries at one a minute, working 24 hours a day. Please stick to Wikidata rules on notability. The entry also has a Findagrave identifier which shows the person's grave marker that confirms the data in the entry. The entry also has a Familysearch identifier which links to 13 documents that confirm the data in the entry. The FamilySearch database has over 1 billion unique human entries, and again I was able to find the entry for Pihl in a few seconds. --RAN (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The necrology section of a newspaper is not journalism. The family or the funeral service writes it and pays for its publication. It is the same as someone that pays for a classified advertisement, or someone that writes a blog post about their deceased grandmother. I'm not arguing that we just include all of them before include this particular entry, I'm arguing that we should not add random entries of entities that have no relevance. It is the same as adding an entry about a random company just because it appears in https://annuaire-entreprises.data.gouv.fr/ or because they appeared in a public notice indexed by https://www.masspublicnotices.org/. Günther Frager (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned "relevance", since you can't read people's minds or predict what people will be searching for in the future, how do you know what people find relevant? Wikidata does not care what type of "journalism" is involved, it just must be a "serious" and "publicly available" reference. It doesn't matter whether it was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, or the funeral director, or the person's child. Even if it contains an error, we still use that fact and deprecate it. A public notice or a telephone directory would only give one or two data points. We have a dozen facts about this dead person. If you want to lobby for changing the Notability rules for Wikidata, the way to do that is at Village Pump, not deleting one entry that you do not like. You are also using the strawman argument about companies, this is not about companies. Companies are deleted if they are self promotion or paid promotion. Companies are also registered that may never exist, they are just shell companies. People actually exist and are referenced in "serious" and "publicly available" media. --RAN (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop being rude claiming that I'm nominating something because "I don't like it". The example with companies is not strawman it is a "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity". Now you are assuming that people are more "notable" than companies even though they are referenced in the same (or more if we consider the French government) "serious" and "publicly available" media. Günther Frager (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you have completely demolished any argument for keeping all entries on every possible company. Yet, we are talking about an entry on a person, not a company, which is what makes it a strawman argument. --RAN (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the distinction between them in WD:N, could you quote the place where there is different treatment between people and companies in the policy? Günther Frager (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130241374

No notability user:Masai giraffe

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete user:Masai giraffe

Q126487673

Q126487673: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It was closed as deleted, but objection was raised that it was closed prematurely. Relisting to foster discussion. I am arguing for deletion for unuseful, non-educational contents consisting of an obituary notice about a highly non-notable run of the mill subject created by the obituary subject's family member. --Graywalls (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep No valid reason for deletion. You wrote: "non-notable" yet Wikidata:Notability's actual policy is: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." The entry was created by me and I have no familial or genetic relationship to the individual. Any obituary that is in the public domain is welcome to have an entry at Wikidata so it can be used as a reference in multiple entries. --RAN (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Delete

Wikidata is only supposed to be a knowledge base for people, events, and things that have something that make them really standout and have references. Wikidata is not an obituary site. User: Masai giraffe

  • Can you show me where the "really standout" rule is written? The only rule I know is: Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." I imagine we can index every legacy.com entry if we had the time and resources. --RAN (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130241249

Q130241249: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable event. Please also review RAN's other item creations. This is disruptive, creating Wikidata items so that the images on Commons are in scope, and vice versa. --Bedivere (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Please stop trying to recruit people to harass me. There is no valid reason for deletion. --RAN (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this engagement announcement relevant enough for a stand alone item? Can you please explain? Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Is your argument that the San Francisco Examiner is not public, or is not serious, which are you going to choose as your argument? --RAN (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see you creating items for the endless engagement announcements published on the San Francisco Examiner or any other newspaper. Only those concerning to your relatives. Most if not all of such engagement announcements are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and only if relevant enough should be mentioned within the people involved's items. So yes, this is not notable to have its own item. Bedivere (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130215613

Rudolf Skowroński (Q130215613): (born 1951): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This person does not seem to meet WD notability criteria: no sitelink, no external id... Wostr (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting deletion request like this, please read first WD:N. 178.37.233.37 10:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The item's sources suggest that he is notable: "Rudolf Skowroński has been a wanted Polish oligarch for years.", eg https://polskieradio24.pl/artykul/2195076,rudolf-skowronski-to-od-lat-poszukiwany-polski-oligarcha and https://polskiemiesiace.ipn.gov.pl/mie/form/r93778,Skowronski-Rudolf-Jacek.html Piecesofuk (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a wanted criminal does not automatically make someone notable. About a large part of society "something" can be found on the Internet, but it does not automatically make a person notable. As here, we only have a few links and nothing more, not an article in the Wikimedia project, not even a reference to any database/website for which we have a property. The existence of a few links in the item does not exhaust #2 of the guidelines in my opinion. Wostr (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apart from above, he is mentioned in multiple books (Google Books quick search) and other sources:
Gang, Artur Górski · 2021
... Rudolf Skowroński, a well-known businessman, owner of a company that has houses in Mikołajki. In 2002, Bogdan G. was his employee. Now the businessman is wanted on an arrest warrant. »Klepacki wanted to collect protection money in Mikołajki ...
Provocation - dictators, politicians, agents
By Piotr Gajdziński · 2002
was included in the (in)famous politician's Andrzej Lepper's list, here:
Andrzej Lepper · 2002 · ‎No preview
Mentioned in Polish Wikipedia as a side character (e.g. here: 18 times in one article only)
Mentioned at least once in the English Wikipedia.
Is the sole topic of the discussions organized by the governmental institutions.. . Zezen (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q116481611

bottom cleavage (Q116481611): exposure of the underside of the breast: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Pointless item since the category was deleted on Commons' side and this probably isn't a real concept anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q107862927

sesame seed candy (Q107862927): food: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Same to Q926500? Wolverène (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q16369003

Hasan Bey Yadigarov (Q16369003): Russian imperial military personnel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wikipedia pages got deleted. Not notable. --Yousiphh (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't pass WDN2 then I think he would pass WDN3 if his father is Israfil Bey Yadigarov (Q4173929) and his son is Israfil Bek Jedigar (Q116911287) as the item would connect two generations. The deleted child (P40) and father (P22) statements would also need to be restored on those two items. Piecesofuk (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q30971149

Q30971149: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

WD:NN Рассилон (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak support -- an empty item, however the term 'self-marketing' (uk: самомаркетинг) may be same to 'self-branding' Q7448029 so it may be even merged rather than deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q77464939

Q77464939: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I very much doubt the the Bavarian State Library has a bestiary called "State Library". I don't doubt that it has a great deal many bestiaries, but there is absolutely no statement in the Wikidata-entry that would help to identify this particular one (if the entry ever referred to a specific one and wasn't just a mistake in the first place) --Flusswasserfall (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q32187898

Niederhorbach (Q32187898): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Ist in Q567685 enthalten F. Riedelio • talk 13:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Each item has its individual article in cebwiki. One is the municipality and the other one is the locality within that municipality. I edited the properties and description of Q32187898 to make it clear. Uschoen (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124956668

Q124956668: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Only references indymedia.nl, part of a set of items created by antifascists, already been topic of discussion here before. 1Veertje (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124305827

Q124305827: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Only antifascists blogs have written about this person 1Veertje (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q106627377

Jan Baliński (Q106627377): conflation - don't use: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Conflated item by blocked user User:Matlin. Split into Jan Baliński (Q106627379): d. 1531 and Jan Baliński (Q130286850): b. 1924. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the item was created in 2021 it referred to Jan Baliński b. 1924.
Today, only GND ID and CERL ID, - the CERL record is based on the GND record -, did not belong to Jan Baliński b. 1924. BPLY (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Help:Conflation of two people. Thank you for your work on these items. William Graham (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An essay by an absent user. BPLY (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240912204857/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&action=history
  1. 2021-04-26 item was created, first version: http://web.archive.org/web/20240912205031/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&oldid=1409113020
  2. 2022-01-17 the false GND ID added
  3. 2023‎-08-02 the false CERL ID added
  4. 2024‎-03-26 GND ID and CERL ID removed
  5. 2024‎-03-30 CERL ID re-added by a user later blocked
  6. 2024-09-12 17:30 version before split and conversion to conflation-item: http://web.archive.org/web/20240912205342/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&oldid=2247189178
So, can any blocked user add a wrong ID, and if it stays some weeks, the item will be deleted? @Kolja21, William Graham: On an item about human A, how long has an ID of human B to exist, for the item to be split and deleted? BPLY (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BPLY: See above: "If the information about the second person was added just recently (e.g. through a merger of items this week), it's usually best to revert this to remove the information" (Help:Conflation of two people). Q106627377 is conflated since January 2022. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Conflation of two people is just a text started by one user. The text in the first section "Identify" consists of two sentences:
  1. "An item conflates two people when it includes one or more elements that come from each, such as dates of birth and death of one and the achievements of another."
  2. "This is different from an item that merely includes a fact about another person."
which are almost the same as in the version of the end of day one of that page 2018-03-13 [6]
  1. "An item conflates two people when it includes several elements that come from each, notably the dates of one and the achievements or function of another."
  2. "This is different from an item that merely includes a fact about another person."
The sentences don't make sense. What are "elements"? What does "several elements that come from each" mean? Does a single such element that comes "from each exist"? What about sentence 2, and "merely includes a fact about another person" - is the CERL ID such a fact? BPLY (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q96697804

Bulletin des Médecins Suisses (Q96697804) refers to the same object as Schweizerische Ärztezeitung (Q1261652). Chrisandres (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The two objects are two individually distinct publications, one in German and one in French. They thave their own individual identifiers and publish articles in the respective languages. Uschoen (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130260444

Q130260444: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q129005532

Mario Kleff: Without Fear (Q129005532): Biography of Mario Kleff, authored by Colin Roberts.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request: Self promotional items created by User:Designer Mario Kleff

Batch 1
  1. Q128969292 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q128971362 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q128985660 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q128997200 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q128999117 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q129141911 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q129077309 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q129074776 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q129073813 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q129062318 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q129042649 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q130249667 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q129808274 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q129807069 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q129730489 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Batch 2
  1. Q129730298 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q129676896 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q129627806 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q129626995 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q129621950 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q129616741 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q129572070 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q129552644 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q129551858 (delete | history | links | logs)
  10. Q129188115 (delete | history | links | logs)
  11. Q129180514 (delete | history | links | logs)
  12. Q129179398 (delete | history | links | logs)
  13. Q129177120 (delete | history | links | logs)
  14. Q129176858 (delete | history | links | logs)
  15. Q129176664 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
  16. Q129176376 (delete | history | links | logs)
  17. Q129175899 (delete | history | links | logs)
  18. Q129175697 (delete | history | links | logs)

Dubiously notable architect. Created a huge number of items of dubiously notable builds and other personal projects (art writing etc). Related items Q129005532 Q130260444 nominated separately by another user. William Graham (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Q130238815 that was created by the same user prior to registration. William Graham (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata items for "Category:AfC submissions by date/..."

Long list with 3377 items, see https://w.wiki/BBto

These items meet the exclusion criteria of notability guideline, are maintenance categories named after a date with only one sitelink. Midleading (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Categories of project pages that aren't notable. William Graham (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126365310

DEIDetected (Q126365310): website: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

No wiki links. Also see the related Project chat section, though that relates to both the page and the linking of the website via properties. --Daisy Blue (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, first of all, this is not Wikipedia. Please avoid citing various policies and random talk pages of other users from Wikipedia. Wikidata is an independent (completely different) project, it does not depend on Wikipedia (nor should it) and there are no lists of recommended/unrecommended sources. It also does not evaluate sources based on the authors of articles, and certainly not on the personal opinion of enwiki editors. When you are providing references on Wikidata, you are using common sense, not policies from the English Wikipedia. Even in cases where (according to your claim) the sources are unreliable, it can be very useful to know which source was used for a particular assertion. The fact that I have provided references describing the subject here is already good thing. As for your complaint about the third source (iXBT), it is more than reliable, it is also used as a separate property. You made a request for deletion due to lack of references, now they have been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and WD:N criteria are met, so your complaints are now completely unjustified.
Regarding described at URL (P973). This property, if anything, is used for available sources that describe an subject. If you don't like described at URL so much, I can replace it with the other one exact match (P2888) and it won't make a difference. I can also not only replace these sources with another property, but also add them as references for some statements, which has already been done.
By the way, I see that you've started reverting my quite valid edits en masse. I see this as an attempt to remove a source you disagree with (same applies for Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) created by @Trade). For my part, I find it quite useful, since this database has information on DEI consulting companies that have contributed to a particular game. For Wikidata, this database is useful for structured data because it also provides information on the developers and publishers for a particular game. What's wrong with it I don't understand. It's a video game database like the others and I think it has the right to be used as a source. Removing valid statements and reverting edits just because a given source is not reliable for enwiki seems completely unreasonable to me, and I'm completely perplexed, since Wikidata is a separate project from Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you revert your edits.
I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2. Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124830722

Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722): Steam curator linked to a harassment campaign: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The only wiki link is to a section within an article on the company it opposes. Also see this Project chat section, which touches on a related subject. --Daisy Blue (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q12222480

Abdulbari ath-Thubaity (Q12222480): Imam and Khatib at Prophet's Mosque Medina: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate and wrong version of Q130301588 --User.inu6 (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q124150630

Q124150630: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam/promotional Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q25583573

Nematollah Akbar (Q25583573): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam/promotional Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q85873606

Heritance Ahungalla (Q85873606): building in Ahungalla, Sri Lanka: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) To integrate the Japanese version of Heritance Ahungalla into the English version.Q85873606 was merged into Q123998073. Univero (Talk) 08:10 15 September (UTC)

Q129586023

person with an activity (Q129586023): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Almost empty and useless item with no meaningful usage. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130262989

Q130262989: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable person. Missing references. Günther Frager (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130266015

Q130266015: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Only reference is to a genealogy website with a photo of his grave. Günther Frager (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130263047

Q130263047: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Only reference is to genealogy websites + she is described as the wife of another non-notable person. Günther Frager (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130306434

Rossella Agresti (Q130306434): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability policy --Corgilover365 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127761244

Q127761244: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax William Graham (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127220377

Q127220377: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears to be a hoax. William Graham (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126989632

Q126989632: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, possible hoax person. William Graham (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q123705338

Q123705338: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Commons-only category Quesotiotyo (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126903426

Q126903426: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears to be a hoax. William Graham (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q126740501

Q126740501: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax. Movie was silently cancelled in the late 00s/early 10s without ever having a cast or crew announced. William Graham (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130311244

Jun Higaki (Q130311244): Japanese immigrant: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Theoretically has a child with Q232307, who did recently have a child, but I see no reliable public sources that even name him; notability, verifiability, privacy, and/or BLP issues Jamie7687 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130262968

Q130262968: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax. created by probable sockpuppet of en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101. Bluemask (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130311958

I just created this entry for "Lives of the Popes" not realizing this already existed as Q12902618 ("Vitae Pontificum (Platina)").

I'm not sure whether I have messed things up further by changing the "en" label to "Lives of the Popes (Platina)" ... If it needs to be changed back, that's fine too.

My intention is to use this in conjunction with the {{Ill}} template.

Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130300033

Q130300033: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130299995

Q130299995: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130300032

Q130300032: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130287966

Q130287966: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Eihel (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130300785

Q130300785: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130290034

Q130290034: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130289978

Q130289978: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q128335056

Q128335056: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q127274422

Q127274422: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Midleading (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130301613

Q130301613: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable, self promo --Gbawden (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q130308223

Q130308223: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable, self promo --Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=2249124484"