Shortcut: WD:RFD
Wikidata:Requests for deletions
Requests for deletions Items that do not meet Wikidata's notability policy can be deleted. Please nominate items for deletions on this page under the "Requests" section below. If it is obvious vandalism, just add the page here (gadget available), or ping an administrator to delete it. Contact can also be made with an administrator in #wikidataconnect.
Please use Please use Wikidata:Properties for deletion if you want to nominate a property for deletion. Duplicate items should be merged, not deleted: see Help:Merge. Do not blank items in anticipation of deletion. In particular, do not remove sitelinks, even if you have requested the deletion of the page in the sitelink's target wiki or if you think that sitelinks of this type should not have Wikidata items. This is not the place to request undeletion. Please read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion and either contact the deleting admin or use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard instead.
|
![]() |
On this page, old requests are archived, if they are marked with {{Deleted}} . An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/08/24.
|
Requests for deletions high ~123 open requests for deletions. |
None at the moment
if this list is out of date.
Requests
[edit]Please add a new request at the bottom of this section, using {{subst:Rfd |1=PAGENAME |2=REASON FOR DELETION }}
.
Audiovisual documentary of Efik language (Q117749885): The audiovisual documentary of Efik language by its native speaker: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Posting for discussion, not immediate action. This is an item for a video that, so far as I can tell, has only been published on Wikimedia Commons. The video is not otherwise identified, and there are no external references. The video itself appears to be a well-intentioned effort to document a traditionally under-documented part of world culture. Does this meet any of our notability criteria? The same user has created many items of similar type. CC @ Olaniyan Olushola Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I came across these a while ago and decided not to nominate them here. While I still think they are well-meant and also a representation of a relevant topic, which is traditionally under-documented, as you said, I am also unsure how these could meet our notability criteria. I guess linking them with the respective language is not enough for WD:N #3? --Dorades (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi@Bovlb, thank you for your observation and continuous contribution to improving Wikidata. Please note that we're currently working on a Nigeria Language Oral History documentation project aimed at producing audiovisual documentaries of Nigeria's indigenous languages by its native speakers to narrate their stories and using the audiovisual files to improve Wikipedia pages where such languages exist and donation for research purposes. Also, the project helps to salvage a collection of endangered knowledge with limited coverage in the media. So, each audiovisual describes an indigenous language in terms of history, culture, tradition, etc.; naturally, language is a notable subject and most times with an existing Wikipedia page in this case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abi,_Cross_River) and Wikidata (Q3510527), however, instead of merging the audiovisual documentary information with each indigenous language they represented. We have considered creating a Wiki data item for each file to describe the metadata related to each audiovisual production.
- Also, I have created a URL link to substantiate the notability of the subject referred to in the documentary. More importantly, i will like to know how best to incorporate this item in a way to create more visibility for this class of knowledge. Thanks for your understanding Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet WD:N --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep If we are going to keep the video it should have a Wikidata reference with keywords in multiple languages. --RAN (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there is a second item for the same video: Audiovisual documentary of Efik language (Q115758880). Also, I assume there might be a misunderstanding here; don't we usually store metadata for media that is uploaded on Commons also there? --Dorades (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete Wikimedia Commons already supports structured metadata, no need to store the metadata here. Midleading (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ... 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Q119702477: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Record Union (Q7302845): Swedish record label: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Rahm Khat (Q124395843): composer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability? WT20 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per IMDb he has composed music for multiple notable movies, so probably notable. EPIC (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request regarding Rumblesushi
[edit]- Q116816877 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117313328 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117765840 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q116816383 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117843947 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117075917 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117813175 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117313551 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q116948952 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q117470272 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Notability? Dorades (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Clever Gretel (Q19042715): English translation of Grimm fairy tale: (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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, link removed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- According to https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3091/clever-gretel/ the source is: "Edwardes, M., Taylor, E., trans. (1905). Grimm's Fairy Tales. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co.". Peter James (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in fact the identical text with some minor differences in typography appears in more editions. But I can rework the item to refer to this particular edition. So I am witdrawing the deletion proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- After some time working on this, considerable doubts have arisen. Based on the above mentioned page https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3091/clever-gretel/ I created the Q124425926, but then I found out that this edition cannot be found in any public catalogue, and so now I have doubts whether it really exists or whether the page made some mistake about the alleged edition. Because of the lack of information about this edition, now I suggest to delete both Q19042715 and Q124425926 as well, apologizing for being too hasty with creation of the latter one. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in fact the identical text with some minor differences in typography appears in more editions. But I can rework the item to refer to this particular edition. So I am witdrawing the deletion proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request regarding Kasper Nordkvist
[edit]- Q124208142 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q124451836 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q124209839 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q123524363 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fonts items are notable. 178.37.205.142 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- says who? Amir (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Marcel Terme (Q124666348): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable, test Nastoshka (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Author of Le cinéma à Aimargues (Q124666307), but then all these were created by IP and have no sources. Fralambert (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Francesco_Filippini_-_Barche_sulla_spiaggia_%281892-93%29.jpg/220px-Francesco_Filippini_-_Barche_sulla_spiaggia_%281892-93%29.jpg)
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)
- Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Carlo_Bazzi%2C_Paesaggio.jpg/220px-Carlo_Bazzi%2C_Paesaggio.jpg)
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)
- Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
region of Western Sahara (Q123689937): geographic region: (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 region of Western Sahara (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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- They are not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Delete given the absence of foundational text (P457), ISO 3166-2 code (P300) (confirming the existence of administrative territorial entities under this item) and sources. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary). Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board (in a discussion that was started by you, in case you've forgotten).M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- The item in question is valid and has been mentioned in that discussion (involving multiple admins). In other words, this rfd is an abuse of process. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary). Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board (in a discussion that was started by you, in case you've forgotten).M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete Not a recognized "administrative territorial entity". There is no government administration. --RAN (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): There is no government administration over the "fictitious administrative area" that covers a claimed/illegally occupied area as well as an area that is governed by another state (a member of the African Union who claims the whole of the territory). M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
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. Herstamp (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Yuka Estrada (Q120229700): American illustration editor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Keep Published author, why are we deleting? --RAN (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I think the main problem is the item is heavely spamed. But then, we could clean it and add filter to protect it. Fralambert (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't we want people to complete the data in their entries, so long as correct? --RAN (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
*: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.
- Looks like self promo, not to mention Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স LTA. Anyway
Delete as User:Fralambert said above "heavely spamed". Even if for some reason we keep it, please clean up the item. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we call a Wikidata entry that is more complete as spammed? Don't we want the information filled in? Has it been shown to be false? Has it been hijacked? --RAN (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
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 BrittoKeep
- 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.
- ↑ https://www.lens.org/lens/scholar/article/063-216-088-355-007/main
- ↑ https://www.lens.org/lens/scholar/article/006-867-262-456-471/main
- ↑ 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)
Keep published author. Herstamp (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Nieuwendijk (Q86819658): Dutch photographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No identifying data, this could be about anyone with the last-name Nieuwendijk, and there are many. I am sorry, that some organization in my country dumped a lot of shit on Wikidata, this is clearly not according to wikidara rules. Paulbe (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ Paulbe: please do not modify items before nominating for deletion. we need to look at the item in its original state BrokenSegue (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The property proposal says "eventually complete" and deleting items conflicts with that. Peter James (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that "eventually complete" is the best estimation of the editor that set that value and not an ironclad mandate. I wouldn't use that statement to make any conclusions about a property or the notability of items that use that property. William Graham (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the author of the slide show 'DE NEDERLANDSE MUSEA EN HUN ONTSTAAN.' created in 1950. According to the museum of world cultures Nieuwendijk is the photographer of the slides and the publisher. This work is in the collection of Museum of Worls Cultures and has an persistent identifier https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11840/pi63487 with a backlink to Wikidata. More information about this person is unfortunately not known yet online but could be available in the future. Hannolans (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep per above. --RAN (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request
[edit]- Q125313049 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125313082 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Not notable parent and child. Barely identifiable. William Graham (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- References: https://www.jurnalekspres.co.id/2023/05/leoni-ayu-pratiwi-sh-calon-milenial.html https://www.potretsumsel.id/2023/05/leoni-ayu-pratiwi-h-arlan-ikut-serahkan.html - Arlan is H Arlan, probably the person mentioned in id:Pemilihan umum Wali Kota Prabumulih 2024. Peter James (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: advertising items created by Jminot92
[edit]- Q61727605 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q61786999 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q81275496 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q61787600 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q82240740 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q112116303 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)
Advertisement items, don't seem notable. William Graham (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Julia Burch (Q113556524): Canadian Internet influencer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- 2MM followers on instagram seems reasonable? BrokenSegue (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- It does. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Bulk deletion request regarding Boowa & Kwala
[edit]Extended content |
---|
|
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Would you also keep all the other items or just the main one? --Dorades (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
CoRDI 2023 - Blogpost (Q122912457): A blog post on https://sven-lieber.org: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Giacomo Ugarelli (Q124732992): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Ovruni (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Semi-notable, contains now 1-URL with verified account (https://athletesusa.org/user/giacomo-ugarelli/) ايمو کي ڀڄايو (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- There seems to be a connection to Q108520425. Could also be the same person as Q125622939. --Dorades (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
natural matter (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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I used "natural matter" in mineral (Q7946) to state that mineral is natural matter, which I traced to sources. Thus, I created it to support this statement, which is part of the definition of mineral. If this statement can be made without natural matter (Q115820956), fine; if not, natural matter (Q115820956) is a vital element making that part of the definition possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- natural object (Q1970309)? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or possibly inorganic compound (Q190065)? I'm not convinced that the definition of minerals as "natural" or "naturally occurring" is even correct; substances like calcium carbonate are considered minerals whether they're found in a rock formation as chalk, or in your teakettle as limescale. Omphalographer (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Delete as non-notable and promotional Jamie7687 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Keep clearly notable, I found him in Debrett's ELdEL69 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Topaz Marketing & Distributing Co. (Q125723487): Print media distributor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails WD:N Morneo06 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep strcutural need for Afro-American Gazette (Q125491127). Fralambert (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Wasiul Bahar (Q125621683): Wikimedian, organizer, photographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep Photographer that we need to track so we know when their images enter the public domain 70 years pma. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep per WD:N "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) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which references are you referring to? --Dorades (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Mahmoud Omar (Q125791432): Head of Growth: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Dorades Please do not delete it. He is one of the famous figures among the Arabs and is an actor. Please tell me what I did wrong and how to fix it?
- A page named "نديم بركات" was also deleted, and he is also a well-known person. How can I recover it? Or write about it again Khidrsalam (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, this item does not demonstrate notability according to the guidelines (WD:N). If it doesn't meet at least one of the three notability criteria, it will probably be deleted.
- Also, I noticed that you are apparently using more than one account. This would be against our rules. Is my assumption correct?
- To request the undeletion of an item, please read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion. --Dorades (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thank you Khidrsalam (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: non-notable web series and episodes
[edit]- Q125447540 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125901298 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125902599 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125902601 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125902602 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125927717 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q125927719 (delete | history | links | logs)
- 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)
- The mentioned items are not promotional or non-notable. Below are some of reference source associated with this items :
- https://g.co/kgs/QH1mBUj
- https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film240243.html
- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30146775/
- https://16may.rudub.online/details.php?id=47282
- http://seasonvar.ru/serial-39771-Mars_Indiya.html
- https://zeflix.online/serials/mars/
- https://thetvdb.com/series/the-mars
- https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/254225-the-mars
- Bing Search Result
- https://wserie.com/shows/the-mars-1
- https://tgstat.ru/en/channel/@coldfilm_serials/7961
- These are some source associated with these items. If not enough then i can provide more. Loischaa (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
The Mars Season 1 (Q125901596): season of television series: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Season of non-notable web series Jamie7687 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- (which are nominated in a bulk request above) Jamie7687 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- wait before deleting any item, i will provide referencing source for there items shortly. Loischaa (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- what does it mean? Loischaa (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
William Francis Norton (Q125118469): (1857-1939): (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:
William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir (Q125118675): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Agnes Gertrude Norton (Q125118971): (1881-1969): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Gerard Francis Norton (Q125943489): (1902-1986): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
William Norton (Q125973531): (1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Margaret Feeney (Q125973633): (1812-1891) wife of William Naughton: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
--Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Could somebody please block this guy? They've been harassing me for over a week. Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete These items are an attempt of using Wikidata as personal genealogy service. Ankry (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- I guess we are going to now try the "not serious" route. Are the sources "comedic" or "satirical", like The Onion? --RAN (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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.
- @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)
- 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)
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 Margaret Feeney (Q125973633) with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and William Norton (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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."
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep I don't really see any issue here. Yann (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Take Margaret Feeney (Q125973633) with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and William Norton (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- @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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You still are conflating a reference with an Identifier. The are not synonyms. --RAN (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep per Wikidata:Notability, Q125118469 contains a valid sitelink to a Wikimedia Commons page. --Greghenderson2006 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep per Wikidata:Notability "1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons.", "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." and maybe even "3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.". BergwachtBern (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request
[edit]Extended content |
---|
|
Spam from a banned user Benoît Prieur. Books not used on the Wiki projects Durifon (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Books published at ENI éditions should not be deleted IMO. Thibaut (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Books published at ENI éditions should not be deleted IMO. Thibaut (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Did write a book published by Lioncrest Publishing (Q125781254). [3]. Fralambert (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion from The Peerage
[edit]- Q76189137 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q76189140 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q76189141 (delete | history | links | logs)
- Q76189142 (delete | history | links | logs)
- 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)
--VIGNERON (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
WinCommerce (Q112633731): Vietnamese consumer goods and retail company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
ITD Vietnam (Q111086347): Coaching & Training center in Vietnam: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Vincere (Q111077196): Software as a service: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Pierce Visual Works Vina (Q116149665): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hưng Thịnh (Q108440424): Vietnamese conglomerate: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Advertising. NewUniverse (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Christopher Ssebuyungo (Q122182842): Ugandan conservator and archaelogist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability? Dorades (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WD:N "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) 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Keep Published author, we just do not crawl, and create entries for articles for the journals he wrote for. --RAN (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which papers, chapters, books or other writings did he author? --Dorades (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Site Formation Analysis of Locality GaJj17 in the Koobi Fora Formation, Northern Kenya --RAN (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Site Formation Analysis of Middle Stone Age Locality GaJj17 in the Koobi Fora Formation, Northern Kenya --RAN (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are these self-published, peer-reviewed, published in a renowned journal or publishing house, ...? --Dorades (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Q89125201: 2017 short film: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails Wikidata:Notability The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Parniya Latifiyan (Q111370013): Iranian creative and artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Zahra Peyda (Q122764538): 23 Mar 1914 - 14 Jun 2009: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Farkhondeh Mahmoodi (Q109929862): Iranian creative and artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Alam Taj Rezaei (Q124471276): An Iranian creative: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Fatemeh Kobra Latifiyan (Q124472213): Iranian motivator: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Ali Niktalab (Q122764500): Darvish: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Rahmatollah Latifiyan (Q113884845): Iranian benefactor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Mohammad Hossein Latifiyan (Q113885308): Experimental Researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Parniya Latifiyan (Q111370013): Iranian creative and artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Siamak NikTalab (Q123022779): An Iranian Writer and Researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 6 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete William Graham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WD:N "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." - 10 external IDs stored in the item. BergwachtBern (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Two of the identifiers (IMDb and TMDB) don't suggest notability; one (Letterboxd) says it suggests notability but seems to be based on TMDB so that should probably be changed; the others don't say anything about notability - could they also be based on IMDb or Wikidata or other user-generated content? Peter James (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is also a link from BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem (Q17622139). Peter James (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Vachendorf (Q49292210): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Does not exist --JokiVatanen (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Carolyn Shelby (Q111309102): web design: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WD:N "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) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which of the references do you consider serious? --Dorades (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Simone Magretti (Q124259139): Dutch far-right extremist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
References to blogs isn't enough for a wd item 1Veertje (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Patricia Visser (Q124712977): Dutch far-right extremist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Being mentioned in one newspaper article as someone's girlfriend is not reason enough to have a Wikidata item 1Veertje (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's linked from this person's unmarried partner, who was the feature of the newspaper article that only mentioned this person as that person's girlfriend. 1Veertje (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WD:N "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) 00:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep No the same one is the building the other one the school. Fralambert (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
John Abrossimow (Q125694472): Dutch far-right activist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Suspect in the new years' eve vandalism of the Erasmus bridge in Rotterdam. Reputable media only name this person as John A. Not te place for Wikidat to gather this info, too speculative 1Veertje (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment If they've received coverage in serious and publicly available references, then it sounds like the issue is with the item's name, not the item's existence. I'd encourage you to update the item based on what the highest quality available sources use, rather than nominate it for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems technically notable. Links to court decisions and I guess mainstream media? Infrastruktur (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Daniel Smirnov (Q125693924): Dutch far-right activist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Convicted for the white nationalist vandalism at New Years' eve in Rotterdam. Reputable media still only refere to him as Daniel S.. most of the info comes from Kafka, a online platform that watches the far-right in the low countries. It's not the place of Wikidata to publish such speculative information. 1Veertje (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment If they've received coverage in serious and publicly available references, then it sounds like the issue is with the item's name, not the item's existence. I'd encourage you to update the item based on what the highest quality available sources use, rather than nominate it for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep per WD:N "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) 00:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Fabio Iovanella (Q125845375): Dutch far-right extremist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Reputable sources refere to this person as "Fabio I." because of Dutch privacie rules. Not really a good idea to have a wd item on this person for that reason? 1Veertje (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment If they've received coverage in serious and publicly available references, then it sounds like the issue is with the item's name, not the item's existence. I'd encourage you to update the item based on what the highest quality available sources use, rather than nominate it for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Steven Visser (Q125845329): Dutch far-right extremist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Reputable sources refere to this person as "Steven V." because of Dutch privacie rules. Not really a good idea to have a wd item on this person for that reason? 1Veertje (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment If they've received coverage in serious and publicly available references, then it sounds like the issue is with the item's name, not the item's existence. I'd encourage you to update the item based on what the highest quality available sources use, rather than nominate it for deletion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Svitavka (Q123043694): stream in Česká Lípa District: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate of Q245101 --VasekPav (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Keep valid link to their university profile. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep The reference URLs were all a broken link but I've added some working links to described at URL (P973) which should be enough to show notability. Item creator should update the references.--DrGavinR (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
Keep It has a valid Identifier. --RAN (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a identifier that imply notability. Fralambert (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Delete Being on what looks like a property list or map doesn't establish notability. William Graham (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment should be considered together with Waterloo Murder: Council Admits Door Had Been Broken For 7 Months (Q126936162) (Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q126936162). --Dorades (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Per above: 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)
İlyas Həsənov (Q22259959): Azeri scientist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails WD:N, created for self-promotion Nemoralis (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep valid site link to their biography at the hospital website. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Keep Structural need--Trade (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Doesn't mean they couldn't have been taking place in the same universe Trade (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Keep. from narrative universe (P1080), fictional universe described in (P1445) and takes place in fictional universe (P1434) do not require there to be multiple works of fiction to justify a universe item. I personally do not see the value in creating one in order for it to be used on a single item, but this particular one has fictional character items as well. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
Keep You will have to get the Wikipedia article deleted first. --RAN (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) All deleted per hoax. Please change your vote Lemonaka (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- According to en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan it probably exists but the Wikipedia article was a hoax. Schools in the UK are notable for Wikidata, but many are not notable for Wikipedia - is it the same for schools in China? Peter James (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter James Public school are normally notable as they are easy to find in a database. But if this was a hoax on Wikipedia, I would probably delete it. Fralambert (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is an identifier but I'm unable to verify it - the link says the search has expired and when I search it says a password is required. There are also references in the English Wikipedia deletion discussion - are these valid sources or could these be part of the hoax? The information seems to have been corrected in Wikidata. Peter James (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter James Public school are normally notable as they are easy to find in a database. But if this was a hoax on Wikipedia, I would probably delete it. Fralambert (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- According to en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan it probably exists but the Wikipedia article was a hoax. Schools in the UK are notable for Wikidata, but many are not notable for Wikipedia - is it the same for schools in China? Peter James (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep This is real. Midleading (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Waterloo Murder: Council Admits Door Had Been Broken For 7 Months (Q126936162): news article: (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)
Keep as creator, it is from a "serious and public" source, per Wikidata:Notability. --RAN (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is about some other person or group writing something about the item. Again, there is not a person who has written a
sourcereference 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)- 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)
- Apologies for the imprecise language. Corrections made above with strikethrough. William Graham (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Notability is about some other person or group writing something about the item. Again, there is not a person who has written a
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment should be considered together with Matheson Lang Gardens (Q126724843) (Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q126724843). --Dorades (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete as not notable, see William Graham's explanation above. --Dorades (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Structural need--Trade (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Have a sitelink. Need to be deleted on tawiki first. Fralambert (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is just a subpage in the project namespace. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
O'Higginiano Historical Museum (Q6033413): national monument of Chile: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Elemento repetido en Q30341211. Confunde a quienes publican las pinturas del museo en Wikimedia --ElPabloRN (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep seem a normal separation between a museum and it's building, who are 2 different concept. Fralambert (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Its building corresponds to Q123382692, known as "Casa de la Independencia" ElPabloRN (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 6 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- Wikidata:Oversight is the policy; the email is [email protected] (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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Keep I added a url. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is also a Commons sitelink (WD:N #1). –Morneo06 (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Seyyed Mohammad Amin Mousavi Sagharchi (Q126952502): researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. CptViraj (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Structural need as author of two academic article. Fralambert (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Spätmoderne" refers to late modernity. Not the same thing at all. Peter Isotalo (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- And still you would translate "late modern period" as "Spätmoderne". --Dorades (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- And still you would translate "late modern period" as "Spätmoderne". --Dorades (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Spätmoderne" refers to late modernity. Not the same thing at all. Peter Isotalo (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
stepchild (Q88904799): inverse label for property P3448: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Pouya Latifiyan (Q109923899): Scientific and cultural researcher and artist.: (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:
- Parniya Latifiyan (Q111370013)
- Zahra Peyda (Q122764538)
- Farkhondeh Mahmoodi (Q109929862)
- Ali Niktalab (Q122764500)
- Alam Taj Rezaei (Q124471276)
- Siamak NikTalab (Q123022779)
--HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ash Arora (Q126948363): Internet personality: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability? Lymantria (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure, she made it to one of the Forbes lists. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Bulk deletion request: Probably non-notable website and individual web page items
[edit]Extended content |
---|
|
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)
- All these records have websites. Please take a look again. Thank you. Hkbulibdmss (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- Yeah it's a tricky question. People should be using Property:P10241 instead in my opinion.StarTrekker (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Comment I don't see any point in deleting just 1 item out of 220. Why don't open broader discussion? --Horcrux (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Dmytro Farion (Q127684590): (1922-2004): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Does not meet notability requirements Friend (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents — Yuri V (о•в) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
Keep If someone is going to write a biography of Iryna Farion or her sibling Marta Farion, they will want to have info on their parents. --RAN (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Yaroslava Slipec (Q127629553): (c1925-2019): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Does not meet notability requirements Friend (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents. — Yuri V (о•в) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).
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)
Keep If someone is going to write a biography of Iryna Farion, they will want to have info on her parents. --RAN (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Mason Remaley (Q127605536): game developer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Non-notable individual. Marbletan (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
No sitelink, no reference. 2001:9E8:2C3F:FF00:188F:1739:295A:46A8 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Emily Leuner (Q127686769): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability? Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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:
- Application of biodiversity data standards in the Encyclopedia of Life project (Q56294882)
- Crowdsourced Chemistry Why Online Chemistry Data Needs Your Help (Q56400938)
- The Spectral Game: Learning spectroscopy using open data (Q56401802)
- Citizen Scientists and Their Contributions to Internet Based Chemistry (Q56401994)
- Delayed impact: ISI's citation tracking choices are keeping scientists in the dark (Q56529023)
- Delayed impact: ISI's citation tracking choices are keeping scientists in the dark (Q56529026)
- Guitar Lessons Scales (Q56602129)
- Data Curation in Biology – Past, Present and Future (Q56881119)
- Revolutionizing data dissemination: GigaScience (Q57002211)
- "A genomic encyclopedia of bacteria and archaea" talk by Jonathan Eisen (Q57139769)
- "Genomic Encyclopedia of Bacteria and Archaea (GEBA)"- Jonathan Eisen @ '09 DOE JGI User Meeting (Q57139780)
- A genomic encyclopedia of bacteria and archaea (Q57139791)
- A personal perspective on open access publishing (Q57139799)
- Jonathan Eisen and the GEBA project - video linked to news release re Dec. 2009 Nature paper (Q57140066)
- Jonathan Eisen and the GEBA project - video linked to news release re Dec. 2009 Nature paper (Q57140077)
- Jonathan Eisen discusses GEBA project at DOE JGI (Q57140085)
- PhyloMETAGenomics (Q57140093)
- GSC 9: Open discussion of session: Unifying concepts in genomic annotation standards (Q57179992)
- Gene Calling Standards (Q57179993)
- Nikos Kyrpides on Gene Calling Standards at GSC8 (Q57179994)
- Nikos Kyrpides on a GSC Global Genome Census at GSC8 (Q57179995)
- Nikos Kyrpides on “The Future of Microbial Genomics” (Q57179997)
- The Microbial Earth Project (Q57179998)
- Ant Microbiome: exploring the host-associated microbiome of ant species (Q57227510)
- Susannah Tringe at the DOE JGI 2009 User Meeting (Q57231625)
- The Ondex SABR Project (Q57240896)
- Semantic Search through the Neuroscience Information Framework (Q57265302)
- Workflows and M5 (Q57271350)
- "Linked Data Light - Linkaggregation mit BEACON" Jakob Voß (GBV) (Q57339714)
- Miss Bikini International 2011, Beijing - Swimsuit Competition _ FashionTV - FTV_0 (Q57481124)
- Bacterial Inclusion Bodies Contain Amyloid-Like Structure (Q57909774)
- GSC 11: Dave Ussery (Q58066806)
- CUAHSI Cyberseminar : Mark Green, Plymouth State University, 10/1/2010 (Q58245868)
- PI3K's Pivotal Role in Cell Migration (Q58416692)
- Terry Hazen at the 2011 DOE JGI User Meeting (Q58746840)
- Janet Jansson on the Terragenome Initiative at GSC8 (Q58746959)
- Genomic Rosetta Stone (GRS): How to register your database identifiers (Q58800857)
- SUV Step (Q58898689)
- Evolution - the Molecular Landscape Interview with DOUGLAS WALLACE interviewed by Richard Sever (Q59384132)
- Evolution - the Molecular Landscape Interview with LUCY SHAPIRO interviewed by Richard Sever (Q59384134)
- Evolution - the Molecular Landscape Interview with THOMAS CECH interviewed by Richard Sever (Q59384135)
- Evolution - the Molecular Landscape Interviews with FRANCES ARNOLD & JACK SZOSTAK interviewed by RICHARD SEVER (Q59384138)
- Control and Regulation of Stem Cells with Rudolf Jaenisch Interviewed by Richard Sever (Q59384140)
- Subconjunctival auto-hemotherapy of eye burns in our cases. PMID: 1405409 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] (Q59701847)
- New Nanostructured Li2S/Silicon Rechargeable Battery with High Specific Energy (Q59756425)
- SDSU Geological Sciences - Thesis Defense - Nicholas Teague (Q59840086)
- 3047 EGF-Receptor Inhibitor Erlotinib As A Potential Pharmacological Prophylaxis For Posterior Capsule Opacification (Q60056815)
- Evolution of Reproductive Morphology in Leaf Endophytes (Q60143775)
- Maximum-Likelihood Model Averaging To Profile Clustering of Site Types across Discrete Linear Sequences (Q60143776)
- Identification, characterization and management of Fusarium wilt of banana (Saba, Lakatan, and Latundan) (Q60240994)
- Mary Ann Moran at the 2011 DOE JGI User Meeting (Q60313573)
- La aplicación de Infraestructuras Científicas y Tecnológicas Singulares (ICTS) a programas de seguimiento y la Red LTER-España (Q60452524)
- La aplicación de Infraestructuras Científicas y Tecnológicas Singulares (ICTS) a programas de seguimiento y la Red LTER-España (Q60452526)
- : Association of TNFSF8 Polymorphisms With Peripheral Neutrophil Count (Q61180822)
- Mayo Genome Consortia: Genotype-Phenotype Association Studies Applicable to Analysis of Circulating Bilirubin Levels (Q61180856)
- The BCG World Atlas (Q61637420)
- Long Asters Rock The Spindle (Q61735132)
- Muscle Labs USA Bodybuilding Supplements (Q61795274)
- Q61846806
- I-CAMP 2010 Australia Monday June 28 Warwick Bowen Whispering gallery mode optical microresonator Lecture I (Q62116757)
- I-CAMP 2010 Australia Monday June 28 Warwick Bowen Whispering gallery mode optical microresonator Lecture II (Q62116760)
- I-CAMP 2010 Australia Monday June 28 Warwick Bowen Whispering gallery mode optical microresonator Lecture III (Q62116762)
- I-CAMP 2010 Australia Monday June 28 Warwick Bowen Whispering gallery mode optical microresonator Lecture IV (Q62116764)
- Q63185263
- Resultados de Investigación- Objetos de Aprendizaje Móviles- Transposición Didáctica (Q63367123)
- Q63508157
- I-CAMP 2010 Australia CIMOPV Saturday July 3 Moritz Riede Small molecule based OPV (Q67228930)
- Comparison of Body Habitus With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the Registry to Evaluate PAH Disease Management (Q110661465)
- Q118199286
- CUAHSI Cyberseminar: John Pomeroy, University of Saskatchewan, 9/17/2010 (Q122420406)
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)
- 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)
- This is very problematic. Seems deliberate.StarTrekker (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Sant'Anna (Q124152604): church building in Gerace, Italy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
This church does not exist Phyrexian ɸ 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Marcok: FYI. I think it is not very accurate to call it a church building. What I see in it:Gerace, -- Tra gli edifici più importanti sono da ricordare: ... Ex Monastero di Sant'Anna, che si affaccia sulle Bombarde e guarda verso la costa. Monastery is a complex of church buildings, not just a stand-alone church. Could it be fixed maybe? --Wolverène (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
xEditsXnearby in Sweden (Q127510225): digital travellogue built with Wikidata items: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep now with 1 sitelink for explanation and 5 images on commons (see SDC) --Erfurth (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
New York City (Q99673783): New York City as depicted in Star Trek: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
New York City as depicted in Star Trek is literally just New York. It's not a "fictional city" either. Making this entry totally pointless. Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Baseball competitions in New York City (Q116809389) appears to have confused this entity with the real NYC. Omphalographer (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not surprising considering I did it myself a few times. That's one of the many issues with these types of items. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Category:Baseball competitions in New York City (Q116809389) appears to have confused this entity with the real NYC. Omphalographer (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It being a fictionalized version of a real city doesn't make it real. I was going to make the Marvel Universe equivalent of this item at some point as it is integral to hundreds of different series and characters. It would be incorrect to use the real city item in its place. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Creating an entity for a fictional version of a real thing can be appropriate in situations where a fictionalized entity diverges substantially from the real one (for instance, the prison-NYC in Escape from New York). But I'm not convinced that is the case for NYC in Star Trek; the more comprehensive list of references in the Memory Alpha wiki gives me the impression that the city remains substantially the same throughout the franchise. Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily have an issue with these types of entries when the fictional version is clearly different from the real thing. For instance Gotham City in Batman versus the actual New York City. The problem is that there's millions of real life locations depicted in fictional stories. So it can easily become an endless thing where your just re-creating "fictional universe" entries for real places. Like should there really be a "fictional Universe" entry for Fargo, North Dakota as depicted in the Movie Fargo? Probably not. As there's essentially no difference between Fargo in the movie and the real life city. So what exactly are you making a "fictional universe" entry for at that point? Or what about a work of fiction where everything is based on real life people and locations except the story and characters are slightly embellished? I don't think that would warrant a separate entry either. It would be super obtuse to and against the point of this if there were separate "fictional character" entries for John F. Kennedy based on every film or book out there even slightly related to the Kennedy assassination. If there was a comic book that had a fictional super hero from Mars named John F. Kennedy based on the real life person though, fine. I don't see why this is any different. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete I love Star Trek but there is zero need to include every single thing in real life that has changed slightly in the world of the franchise. It's a terrible idea to make Wikidata items for things like these.StarTrekker (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Samuel Joly (Q128210950): Drummer from Quebec, Canada: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Eligibility Rockpeterson (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep I respectfully disagree. See the reference URL provided in the item. Also see this article which I added as an additional reference. - Wil540 art (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request regarding Tech SEO Summit
[edit]Batch 1 |
---|
|
Batch 2 |
---|
|
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Sagar S (Q7399024): Indian lyricist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails Wikidata notability — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst The link from Police Story 3 (Q16253036) seems to indicate WD:N #3 notability. --Emu (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
enVVeno Medical Corporation (Q124150929): Medical Company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Spam Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The ethnohistory of the Nakhchivan toponym is as old as legends (Q97698619): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
The article about subject has been deleted in Azerbaijani Wikipedia due the discussion. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep still wikidata notable valid ISBN --RAN (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
Paul-Éric Langevin (Q62091591): (born 1979) French memorialist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No notoriety or notability --Alexlangevin (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep structural need to connect family tree. --RAN (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Isabelle Langevin (Q62091635): (born 1983) French physiotherapist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No notoriety or notability --Alexlangevin (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep structural need to connect family tree. --RAN (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
Keep We have about a dozen scientific articles with this name or a synonym in the title. --RAN (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Vasily Vasilyevich Sushkov (Q128789971): (1779-1828): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No sources at all Andres Ollino (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Naive rm: please add at least one external ID, otherwise the item may get deleted. Andres Ollino (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same with #Q113516951; see WD:N criterion 3. --Wolverène (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep structural need to connect family tree. --RAN (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Varvara Nikolayevna Sushkova (Q113516969): Russian Empire aristocrat (1836-1916): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No sources at all Andres Ollino (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Naive rm: please add at least one external ID, otherwise the item may get deleted. Andres Ollino (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same with #Q113516951; see WD:N criterion 3. --Wolverène (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep standard genealogy entry. --RAN (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Oleksandr Bashmakov (Q113516957): Russian Empire aristocrat (1825-1888), head of the Kherson Governorate: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No sources at all Andres Ollino (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Naive rm: please add at least one external ID, otherwise the item may get deleted. Andres Ollino (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same with #Q113516951; see WD:N criterion 3. --Wolverène (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Standard genealogy entry. Removing one person from the tree breaks it, there are 200 years of family history concatenated. --RAN (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Campus Management Corp. (Q5028651): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Does not meet WD:N? Nutshinou (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion of Azerbaijani warriors
[edit]Examples: Q105230900: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs), Q105231779: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs), Q105231107: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability issue after on-wiki deletion...
After the 2020 war one user has created ~3000 article on azwiki about deceased Azerbaijani warriors. After that I created items for them with some minimal properties (e.g. this batch, I can't see if there were others). And now, there's a discussion az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr/2020-ci il Qarabağ müharibəsində həyatını itirənlər which leads to a deletion of most of them onwiki. Should we also delete items for them too? --Infovarius (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Any dead person can have a Wikidata entry that can be sourced to a "public and serious" source. There are projects adding war dead from US revolutionary war and US civil war. --RAN (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that many items have no sources (and corresponding az-articles had no either, and thus were deleted). I just believe that persons with some kind of awards should be kept. --Infovarius (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unsourced items should be deleted unless a source can be found.StarTrekker (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- This list should be checked. --Infovarius (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Q113710568: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Wikidata is not the place to coin terms. The label isn't even mentioned in the press release used as source. --Matthias M. (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Angelo Gatto (Q129166118): italian painter (1922-2018): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate page --Monsterofweb (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC) I request the deletion of this page because there is currently another one with the same data and with the correct Identifiers (ID). Thanks
- If the name is correct I can only find Angelo Gatto (Q110163209), a 16th-century military leader, not the same person. Peter James (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Muhammed Aboobacker (Q128210503): director of Indian companies: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable; likely self-promotion. Xezbeth (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep WD:N #2 - clearly identifiable, @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): is there a way to stop abusive deletion requests? ISNIplus (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way that Director Identification Number (P9706) is enough to confer notability on its own. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not? It seems to be an actual database and not social media.StarTrekker (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's just an ID number assigned by the government to anyone who applies with proof of identity and an address. Just try looking for this person; there are multiple people with this name and none of them are any more notable than a normal person with a job. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah ok, then yeah I agree that it does not indicate notability.StarTrekker (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's just an ID number assigned by the government to anyone who applies with proof of identity and an address. Just try looking for this person; there are multiple people with this name and none of them are any more notable than a normal person with a job. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not? It seems to be an actual database and not social media.StarTrekker (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
ballet critic (Q29888020): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Item seems to be empty --Nemea (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- DeepL translation give me "ballet critic", maybe a merge with dance critic (Q19765978) instead? Fralambert (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Idk, ballet is a pretty specific type of dance with it's own subculture around it, especially in Russia (the original language of this item).StarTrekker (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- DeepL translation give me "ballet critic", maybe a merge with dance critic (Q19765978) instead? Fralambert (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep I linked up the item to Category:Ballet critics (Q7613087) and another use in Q7324426. So even though the item is a little bare, it's in use and has some value. William Graham (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: Palestinian martyrs
[edit]Over 10.000 items created as part of Wiki Palestine Project - Martyrs (Q123207466) have no place on Wikidata. Wikidata shouldn't be used for this kind of activism. All items have zero sitelinks and zero identifiers. Multichill (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete All of these use the same source, who is not a database. Would be better on their own Wiki. Fralambert (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete If these people all had Find a Grave pages or some other identifier on a database I would not consider the activism in itself to be reason enough for deletion, but since there only seems to be one source (and one that is not known to be reliable) I don't think they pass Wikidata notability individually.StarTrekker (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If deletion is because the reliability of the source is not known, we should be consistent and delete items based on Find a Grave and similar American sources that are not known for reliability. The code (P3295) is probably an identifier on a database. Peter James (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Probably" isn't good enough. While places like IMDb and Find a Grave are sometimes unreliable they're at least provably databases with individual links for each person, and in Find a Grave's case they tend to refer to actual physical locations (where epitaphs or pictures of the place of rest can be added). The numbers added for code (P3295) on these items are just numbers listed on a PDF. I can't see how that passes Wikidata notability.StarTrekker (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If deletion is because the reliability of the source is not known, we should be consistent and delete items based on Find a Grave and similar American sources that are not known for reliability. The code (P3295) is probably an identifier on a database. Peter James (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Mohammad Sabeti Monfared (Q124693233): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Q129513722: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No new item needed, nothing new to merge Wuselig (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Wuselig Why would it be deleted? Ayack (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because I really did this by mistake. Had I seen the original item beforehand I wouldn't have even started creating the new item. There is no new, or different information in my creation than in the correct item. In any other circumstance I would have merged, but here there was nothing to merge. Wuselig (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can still merge them, it takes less time and doesn't involve other people.StarTrekker (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because I really did this by mistake. Had I seen the original item beforehand I wouldn't have even started creating the new item. There is no new, or different information in my creation than in the correct item. In any other circumstance I would have merged, but here there was nothing to merge. Wuselig (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Newport (Q27716152): magazine of Newport College, Salve Regina University: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not relevant. No sign of notability has been given. Paulbe (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep since two articles are linked to it. It seems to be "The Magazine of the Newport College" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salve_Regina_University see for example https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=fac_staff_pub Piecesofuk (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Q27987555: church building in Gorla Minore, Italy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Non-existent building Yiyi .... (talk!) 08:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
Voorhees (Q111243654): given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not a real given name. --StarTrekker (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
- @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)
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)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Chloe Reese Carter (Q112663716): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Notability? Wolverène (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notable, many sources and ids. 159.205.179.12 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see no reliable sources, only catalogues and video-sharing platformas. --Wolverène (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Ali Nazari Monfared (Q28712866): Iranian politician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not required Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Gratregerbach (Q23689614): river source in Styria, Austria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
The Gratregerbach is the upper part (headwater) of the Lusenbach (Q23692089). A Merger doesn't work (at least for me) because there where two seperate articles in the german Wikipedia. --Liuthalas (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Bulk deletion request: 277 Systematic internaliser (SI) items
[edit]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)
- 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)
Q127868363: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Created and almost exclusively edited by a banned IP address. The topic is made up, has nonsensical data, and is clearly spam. The supposed external IDs bring up 404s. It is kinda funny though, actually, but I digress. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs ] 06:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Deleted by Wüstenspringmaus (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Agbaye (Q129630339): Freelancer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Out of scope --Gbawden (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Sophie Kaiser (Q124312249): American musician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Hunfried von Istria (Q76299875): Peerage person ID=672536: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
The item Q76299875 (Hunfried von Istria) is a double of Q3493266 (Hunfrid, Margrave of Istria) --Belysarius (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)