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 #wikidata^connect.

Please use {{Q+}} the first time you mention an item. Unless you use the gadget, please also ping the item's creator in your request (or ping the bot operator, when appropriate) if the user is still active on Wikidata and the user has contributed the majority of information in that item.

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.

More information

Add a new request

Translate this header box!

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/2024/12/13.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~153 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with `{{Delete}}`

1513 establishments in Asia

Bertran d'Alamanon

Ceramists of Dagestan

Ceratiomyxa morchella

Darts in the Netherlands

Jakarta State Polytechnic

List of categories containing the UWMTCCT template

Male Wikipedians

NK Junak Sinj managers

Pengguna peserta pelatihan Wikidata tanggal 29 Januari 2022

Software & Tools

SXSW EDU 2019

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.

Requests

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

Example biographies

Q29962164

Q29962164: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I would just delete it but there seems to be some external (mis)use. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjetil r: You should use Wikidata Sandbox 1 (Q4115189), Wikidata Sandbox 2 (Q13406268) or test.wikidata.org for this purpose or take advantage of arbitrary access and create a real-world example. --Pasleim (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Wikidata Sandbox 1 (Q4115189) and/or Wikidata Sandbox 2 (Q13406268) could be used in some cases, but we also have a legitimate need for having a semi-stable dummy item that could be used for documentation purposes. I don't know test.wikidata.org very well, but is it really suitable for such use cases? For example, the birth date and death date of [1] do not appear in the infobox at [2]. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This item doesn't seem to be used on no.wikipedia.org anymore. @Kjetil_r: Can you confirm? --Pasleim (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjetil_r, Pasleim, Matěj Suchánek: no activity on this discussion for 4 months, what should we do. And what about Q30049473? (I mean, we may keep one but 2 seems overkill). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q30049473

Q30049473: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I would just delete it but there seems to be some external (mis)use. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used for test, development, and documentation purposes on no.wikipedia. Isn't that within scope for what we can do? Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek, Kjetil_r: I am not sure, but wouldn't Douglas Adams (Q42) (or something else) be better as an example? Bencemac (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need an example item where I can add or remove data at will when I work on making changes to infoboxes. I can't really do that to Douglas Adams (Q42). Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. As Kjetil_r has demonstated, these serve sensible on-wiki software development and documentation purposes that actual biographies or Wikidata sandbox aren't sufficient for. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjetil_r: Can you not use Wikidata Sandbox 1 (Q4115189) for testing and development and Douglas Adams (Q42) for documentation? --Pasleim (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we need to spend time on these, so I have no strong opinions on how we should do it. I do have a legitimate need for such items in the future, but I'll let others decide if we should keep these two, or if I can just create new ones when necessary. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Matěj Suchánek, Pasleim: Well, I don't see much point in deleting them now and creating them again for future tests so maybe it's probably best to keep them.--BRP^ever 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion still applies: this is nothing that belongs to Wikidata. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~410 Azerbaijani films

(Those items are listed at User:Pasleim/Items for deletion/Page deleted/Archive/2017-2.)
There are ~410 items about Azerbaijani films whose only sitelinks were deleted by azwiki admin User:Vusal1981 in October/November 2017. There are no identifiers, links, or references on the items, and they have barely been touched in the past 14 months by editors (as it happens to most abandoned items). As I have no idea where I can lookup information about them, I’d like to ask the community whether anyone can rescue these items so that they meet the notability requirements, or whether they shall be deleted as non-notable items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have more of them. I don't think they were based on an online resource. I vaguely recall discussing them with a contributor to that wiki. I don't recall who that was though. Obviously, it would be good to keep them, but that would need a reference to confirm them. --- Jura 08:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: User_talk:Sotiale/Archive_A#azwiki. --- Jura 09:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q15348443

Solenostoma paroicum (Q60617107): species of plant: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Allready exists; see Q15348443 --Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: For me it isn't clear that Solenostoma paroicum (Q60617107) and Jungermannia paroica (Q15348443) are identical. Can you elaborate? --Pasleim (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, Solenostoma paroicum/shining flapwort is synonymic to Jungermannia paroica. --Wolverène (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added the statement "Said to be the same as": [3], [4]. What do you think? --Wolverène (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.: can you provide some expertise, please …? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different names, that is, two different formal entities. If there was more information a "taxon synonym" / "is a synonym of ..." statement could be added, but this information is not present. We really do need a "this name is homotypic with" property. - Brya (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in Bryophytes, but the two taxa do have the same basionym: Nardia paroica Schiffn. Lotos 58: 320. 1910. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC), 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, that is what I said: they are homotypic. - Brya (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also – for what it's worth – ITIS lists Solenostoma paroicum (Schiffn.) Schust. as a synonym of Jungermannia fossombronioides Aust. (Q17290457), but doesn't list Jungermannia paroica at all. Then again I guess ITIS is fairly often not very well updated these days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. And Tropicos says that Jungermannia fossombronioides is treated as a synonym of Solenostoma fossombronioides by Stotler, R. E. & B. J. Crandall-Stotler. 2017. A synopsis of the liverwort flora of North America north of Mexico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 102(4): 574–709. A synopsis of the liverwort flora of North America north of Mexico. Information on bryophytes is fairly scarce. - Brya (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q57823196

Português: cultural district (Q3710552) inventado por Prburley. Quando foi questionado em Talk:Q57823196#Fonte, não apresentou fontes para confirmar a existência disso retratado no item. As fontes apresentadas tratam de outro assunto (uma antiga fábrica localizada em outra região de Salvador).

--Luan (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is under the instance (P31) statement, page 14 of PDF, published by the Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano, Habitação e Meio Ambiente (Sedham) of Salvador in 2007. If a government document is insufficient to support an item, please delete it. Prburley (talk)

@Luan: is a mixup or not? --- Jura 07:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Ainda mantenho minha proposição de eliminação. Em resumo, mesmo alterando a denominação para algo que está previsto em lei, ainda é somente algo previsto em lei, sem a efetivação de uma regulamentação que delimitaria de forma mais precisa o território (o que está e o que não está situado nele). Explicando mais detalhadamente, na página 14 do PDF encontra-se a inciso XIII, art. 230, da Lei n.° 7.400/2008 (PDDU) de 27 de fevereiro de 2007 (que dispõe sobre o General Urban Ordinance Plan (Q837215) de Salvador (Q36947)). Lá trata da "APCP do Rio Vermelho", ou seja, da Área de Proteção Cultural e Paisagística (APCP) do Rio Vermelho. Não há nada sobre "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" ou "APC--Rio Vermelho". Vale dizer que a Lei n.° 7.400/2008 foi revogada pela Lei n.º 9.069/2016 (vide art.411), encerrando uma série de contestações judiciais, mas os termos sobre a APCP do Rio Vermelho foram mantidos/copiados (vide art. 269, inciso XIII). Além disso, não existe ainda regulamentação da APCP do Rio Vermelho pelo poder legislativo municipal. A regulamentação em legislação específica é importante para identificar, dentre outras coisas, a delimitação em escalas adequadas para cada APCP e é requerida pela Lei n.º 9.069/2016 para a devida institucionalização como APCP. Por exemplo, existe regulamentação para a "APCP da Ladeira da Barra/Santo Antônio da Barra" e outras 8 APCP (vide Lei n.º 8165/2012). --Luan (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Luan: & @Jura1:Uma mensagem do: Instituto do Patrimônio Artístico e Cultural da Bahia, Secretaria de Cultura do Estado da Bahia (IPAC), 11/2/2019 (hoje.) "[...] no bairro do Rio Vermelho tem uma poligonal de tombamento. Vale ressaltar que no entorno da poligonal alguns imóveis são tombados individualmente. [...] O nome é o Poligonal do Rio Vermelho."Prburley (talk)

Should the item "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" be "Poligonal do Rio Vermelho"? Thanks, Paul Prburley (talk)
Onde isso foi dito? Nessa imagem no Facebook? Independentemente de onde foi dito, vale salientar que toda a legislação anteriormente citada e a Sedham são da esfera municipal (Municipal Prefecture of Salvador (Q53930901)). Já o Instituto do Património Artístico e Cultural da Bahia (Q10302963) pertence à esfera estadual (Government of Bahia (Q61641530)). Logo, não tem nada a ver uma coisa com a outra, pois as esferas de governo são autônomas em suas classificações de patrimônio. Em listagem de 2017, também não há nada na esfera federal (National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (Q391537)) como "Conjunto Urbano" ou na coluna de dados do tombamento "paisagístico" relativo ao Rio Vermelho. Essa tal poligonal também não consta na lista do IPAC para bens em Salvador. Só uma frase postada em Facebook não prova nada, na ausência de uma lei, de uma delimitação, de um processo de tombamento. Esse item deve ser eliminado. --Luan (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Onde isso foi dito? Na minha correspondência com o Instituto do Património Artístico e Cultural da Bahia (Q10302963), um órgão governamental do Estado da Bahia. Leia a mensagem acima. Prburley (talk)
@Prburley: eu li. Você disse quem, não disse a fonte da informação. Independentemente, você começou dizendo que era um tombamento municipal (apontou legislação municipal). Provei que não existia. Agora tenta dizer que há um tombamento estadual (apontou uma aparente fala do IPAC). Provei também que não existe o tombamento nessa esfera. Me adiantei e mostrei também que não há tombamento federal. Não há mais porque manter esse item. @Jura1: can you delete this item? --Luan (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: As a librarian I believe government documents and communication with the relevant government entities point to establishing some entity--and working towards its proper name, not a deletion. This is well covered in Wikidata: Notability. Prburley (talk)

@Luan: Please review the guidelines at: Presumir a boa-fé. Language like "inventado" assumes that an editor randomly "invents" things rather than editing in good faith using given sources. Thanks! Prburley (talk)
@Prburley: você pula de uma esfera governamental para outra tentando provar sem sucesso que o item que criou tem base na realidade para além do teu solitário entendimento. As esferas são autônomas, uma não pode intervir no que for estabelecido pela outra. Logo, o IPAC não normatiza sobre Sedham ou sobre o PDDU, pois estes são municipais, e vice-versa. "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" não existe, em nenhuma esfera de governo. "Área de Proteção Cultural e Paisagística (APCP) do Rio Vermelho" foi prevista em lei de Salvador, mas nunca foi criada, delimitada. Sem isso, não é possível identificar o que está dentro dela ou não; não é possível identificar qual imóvel é abrigado nessa área territorial; não é possível determinar o tamanho dessa área; não há data, características ou condições de proteção. "Poligonal do Rio Vermelho" não teve a fonte/referência que confirme sua existência, a não ser a imagem publicada no Facebook que apontei. Mas novamente, não há informações sobre essa possível área, tamanho características, imóveis incluídos, etc. O fato de ser bibliotecário não parece te ajudar no processo de busca por fontes que confirmem a existência detalhada do item que quer tanto manter. A boa-fé não permanece diante de uma situação como essa, lembrando que isso começou na página de discussão do item na qual você me ignorou e apontou fontes sem relação com o item, ao que se soma as mensagens alternantes aqui entre as esferas de governo no Brasil, mostrando desconhecimento e insistência infundada. Esse item poderia muito bem figurar em Wikipedia:Silly Things (Q4995845) ou Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (Q14629005). --Luan (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A existência de tal entidade ainda não foi comprovada. Por isso, além de remover informações falsas, removi também as alegações não verificáveis de localização e instância. --Luan (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q40985505

Cebus sp. (Q40985505): species of mammal: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Ambiguous, not a valid taxon, and unlinked. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist: it has a valid identifier, thus I tend to keep it. If some of the statements are not correct, please use deprecated rank to remove this item from query results. Is that possible? --MisterSynergy (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterSynergy: Perhaps, but I don't think so. As far as I understand it, the NCBI Taxonomy identifier regards a species of virus named Cebine betaherpesvirus 1 (Q24808723). It has been found in two host species: humans, and in an unspecified specimen belonging to the Gracile capuchin monkey genus Cebus (Q8447051). The Virus-Host DB page can be found here: https://www.genome.jp/virushostdb/1125844 I'm only guessing here, but it seems the scientists studying this particular strain of virus didn't bother to identify which of the fifteen or so species of the Cebus genus that particular monkey belonged to. The reason for this is of course that they were not really studying the monkey at all, but the virus using it as host.

Normally within the field of taxonomy the term "species" or the abbreviation "sp." is only used when failing to pinpoint a particular species within a recognized genus. More or less, "sp." is only a placeholder for a taxon name until the specimen has been properly identified as being a member of a valid species, or described as a new species. In this case however, no one ever tried to do this. In fact, instead of (sort of...) specifying the object as "Cebus sp." they might just as well simply have called it "monkey". In this particular case "Cebus sp." doesn't really relate to any specific taxon at all – hence, it can never be a "deprecated" taxon either.

Lastly, perhaps @Pigsonthewing have an opinion about all this? He's familiar with most things about taxonomy, and on top of that also knows more about the Wikidata tech details than me. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-)
The item was created by User:Magnus Manske, apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410). If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q55687191

Q55687191: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Referent unclear Swpb (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the Polish description. Delete because it's unused and because Wikidata is not a terminology dictionary. --Wolverène (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Avaiable in Ross Brawn and Adam Parr Total Competition: Lessons in strategy from Formula One. Simply saying it's process in Formula One. Should be keeped same as Q10747721. Eurohunter (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - With lack of references in statements it's still not notable. --Wolverène (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eurohunter: can we merge into homologation (Q10747721), so that "klaryfikacja" remains as alias for that item? The term might occur in the source you provide, but it seems rarely used otherwise, right? --MisterSynergy (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61446814

Fool's Village (Q61446814): season of television series, part of the "Calambur" programme: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It seems to be this series has no seasons: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seznam_d%C3%ADlů_seriálu_Děrevnja_durakov Queryzo (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derevnya durakov (The Fool's Village) was a part of sketch TV show en:Calambur. Calambur had 6 seasons. I'm not sure if Derevnya durakov divided by seasons itself. Anyway, it's not our problem for now, request the deletion of the Czech article in their project first. --Wolverène (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there's reason to move cs:Děrevnja durakov into the separate item, because it doesn't describe the whole show.--Wolverène (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... so you did it wrong. --Wolverène (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q22284875

Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875): Regional and S-Bahn station in Berlin, Germany: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Incomplete and erroneous duplicate of Q567079 --Iulle (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It look like Bahnhof Jungfernheide (Q567079) is about all the station including Fernbahnhof and S-bahn rail. and Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) is only about s-bahn. but I don't know if it is right or not. - yona b (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. That's why Q22284875 has a Property:P361 pointing to Q567079. One cannot merge these items without removing that property first. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started to clean up the three items. But it is a bit difficult Bahnhof Jungfernheide (Q567079) Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) Jungfernheide metro station (Q19951075) --GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some changes in the items recently. @Srittau, MB-one, GodeNehler, GPSLeo: can you please have a look, particularly at the item histories [5][6][7]? I have no idea how we usually model railway stations. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) should definitely not get removed until the deletion request is decided. But we have to decide if a station with a part for the S-Bahn (Q95723) and a part for the regular railway should have two separate items or not. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to stay only with item Bahnhof Jungfernheide (Q567079) and to remove item Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) as the Berlin S-Bahn (Q99654) of Berlin has only combined items with S-Bahn and Train. There are only separate item for Berlin U-Bahn (Q68646), see also item Berlin Alexanderplatz station (Q698497), Berlin-Friedrichstraße railway station (Q702402) or Berlin Hauptbahnhof (Q1097). --GodeNehler (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the case here, but S-Bahn stations are quite often treated as separate stations from the main line stations, they share the name with, if they don't share any track infrastructure (which is the case here). So, I guess, we should keep separate items for all three stations (main line (Q3238851), S-Bahn (Q95723) and rapid transit (Q5503)). --MB-one (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The items seems to be confused at the moment. In reality the station has 2 S-Bahn tracks, 2 U-Bahn tracks, 2 regular train tracks and at least 2 metro bus stops(I'm not sure from memory whether it's 2 or 4 metro stops). The S-Bahn part and the train part is owned DB Netz (Q896765) but neither buses nor U-Bahn is. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q59783740

according to some sources (Q59783740): among the sources there is only a partial finding of this data. For use with qualifier P1480.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No sitelinks, little data, vague statement. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is supposed to be a qualifyer and is used as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye, this value is for Property:P1480, the English label has already been set.--Arbnos (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbnos: sourcing circumstances (P1480) is where I discovered this item. Just to clarify, Q59783740 didn't have an English label until Arbnos added one. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems a bit unuseful (putting some sources in reference should be enough and more direct) but legit. @Arbnos: could you add a description? (something like on circa (Q5727902) or presumably (Q18122778))

Q2899600

Q2899600: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Per ticket:2019040410007121; “personal information which is incorrect (erroneous date and place of birth, false occupation, etc.) and violates my privacy and my "right to be forgotten"”. Please ping me when you are closing the request, so I can inform the subject. Bencemac (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable subject. Content issues should be resolved without taking the "nuclear" step of deletion. As for "false occupation", we use writer (Q36180), which is what both reliable sources and his own website: [8] say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Talk:Q2899600 for some more context "false occupation" seems to mean as "not up-to-date". This person seems to use is right to be forgotten on many places : starting by the two articles on en.wp and fr.wp, his photo on Commons, he deleted his website and its not archive on Internet Archive (by request?) and apparently the VIAF link too, etc. I guess the information are becoming private again (?) and we should probably Delete too. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request, if someone said that it’s privacy issues then we should delete. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61043828

Alexia Gaudeul (Q61043828): Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena, Max-Planck-Institut für Ökonomik, University of East Anglia, University of Southampton, Toulouse School of Economics, HEC Paris: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Per ticket:2019032610005012; “as the process of revision of this article has generated harmful statements about my alleged previous gender, without referring to reliable sources and without my agreement”. Please ping me when you are closing the request, so I can inform the subject. Bencemac (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable subject (and one who self-publishes [9], [10] much of what we say about them). Content issues should be resolved without taking the "nuclear" step of deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also prefer to just remove the « harmful statements » as @Pigsonthewing: said but if there is no other choice I guess we should respect their right to be forgotten so Wait first and then Delete. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q28552958

Ernesto Fernández (Q28552958): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unusable and unidentifiable, non relevant Triplecaña (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q11773980

Q11773980: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-sensical item, formerly included a sitelink to a redirect Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an instance of microregion (Q11781066); the site link was for an article redirected to Q12037085, which is a list of microregions in Zlín Region (Q192536). The notability guidelines for Wikidata and the various Wikipedias are not all identical, so it could still be notable. Peter James (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q63295873

Q63295873: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A non-notable slang/neologism for something along the lines of 'the privileged', used in recent Japanese politics. No site links. I might (re-)classify it into a lexicographical item if I had to, but I doubt if it could be attestable by Wiktionary's standard anytime soon. It's slang-ish, and I fail to come up with a clear definition based on stable sources. --whym (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@四葉亭四迷: Any thought? --Okkn (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources [11][12][13][14]--四葉亭四迷 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to make it ~~a lexeme or entity~~a lexeme entity or non-lexeme entity? If non-lexeme, you would need to have at least one sitelink. (I don't think other conditions in WD:N will meet either.) If lexeme, it has to be attested and idiomatic. whym (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say

Delete the item and put the data in a Lexeme entity (@Whym: Lexeme are entity and this locution seems to be clearly both attested and idiomatic). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. (It's now applied.) How do you know it is idiomatic? The phrase is sort of like wikt:second-class citizen, but without the programming-language sense (and not 'inferior', obviously). If it is an idiom, I would expect it has a non-idiomatic reading in addition to an idiomatic reading. To me, 上級国民 seems to have only one sense - the 'privileged' / 'superior" sense, which seems straightforward and almost literal. whym (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q60700696

General Prosecutor of the Republic (Q60700696): office responsible for the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

ShouldAttorney General of Mexico (Q1507504) --Jesuiseduardo (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be the same: Attorney General of Mexico (Q1507504) relates to Procuraduría General de la República (Q50150345) like General Prosecutor of the Republic (Q60700696) relates to Attorney General of Mexico (Q60678925). - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q741032

trigger point (Q741032): discrete spot in taut bands of muscle that produce local and referred pain when muscle bands are compressed: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It should be merged with trigger point (Q1956673) as they refer to the same concept. --Nasch92 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They both have a zh.wp link, can someone native check if that is true they are the same? Q.Zanden questions? 23:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lakokat: Please take a look. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q18325890

Reuben (Q18325890): male given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Describes same topic as Ruben (Q18114894) --WikiHannibal (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @WikiHannibal: it is two different given names and there should be two different items. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: Not sure if this works like a discussion but the English article for Q18325890 is about Ruben as well as Reuben, and mentions variants in other languages. The same is true for Q18114894 where the Italian article, for example, mentions among others the English variant Reuben. The articles describe the same topic using different names for the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: yes, we can discuss and yes the situation is a bit strange but contrary to Wikipedias, Wikidata can't mix two concepts even if they are very close, otherwise it would be very hard to correctly store the data. See Wikidata:WikiProject Names#Basic principles: « each string should have a distinct item: the most important property is therefore native label (P1705). Wassyl is not Василь is not Васіль is not Vasyl ». Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: I think I understand the underlying idea, but are we talking about concepts then (as you say above), or "spellings" of the "same" concept in different languages? Perhaps the issue lies elsewhere. My goal, from the point of wikipedia, is to link the contents of the article in "all" languages. How can I do that? If Reuben is not Ruben, then the English article RUBEN should link to Ruben (Q18114894) (and, for example, all Rubens from English Reuben moved there - that would me up to wikipedia editors to decide). But it seems I cannot link the English article RUBEN to Ruben (Q18114894). Thanks for your help. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q20984678

eater (Q20984678): human or other live being who eats something: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

@Thierry Caro, Sjoerddebruin: I don't think that "eater" is really an occupation, or that pointing to this item with subclass of (P279) or occupation (P106) is the proper way to model that something eats something else. I don't think this item serves any real purpose. Yair rand (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Yair rand: if this is not the proper way, how would you suggest to do it? In particular, I'm thinking about competitive eaters like Molly Schuyler (Q6896676) who do have for principal - and sometimes professional - occupation to be an eater. Until then I would lean towards

Keep. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: One's occupation can be participating in eating competitions, but one's occupation can't be "being an entity that eats". (I see that User:Thierry Caro has created competitive eater (Q63554580) for the actual occupation, which is more accurate.) man-eater (Q1365331) and Cookie Monster (Q1754267) are not modeled in a way that makes sense, though. We have main food source (P1034), though I'm not sure that would work here. --Yair rand (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q57904781

Pascale Canova (Q57904781): French author: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Demande de la personne objet de la notice Alain Schneider (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no more links Alain Schneider (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Request of the person who is the subject of the notice" is not a valid reason for deletion; and is in any case stated without evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alain Schneider: pourrais-tu donner des détails ? d'où viens la demande de suppression, directement de la concernée ? est-ce publique ? sur quoi cette demande est-elle basée ? etc. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @VIGNERON: Cette personne est une collègue de travail qui ne voit pas en quoi des éléments personnels ont à être mis dans une base de données publique. Elle considère que c'est contraire au RGPD et veut s'adresser à la CNIL. J'ai d'ailleurs quasiment vidé (avant que tu ne les remettes) la notice de toute information et enlevé tous les liens Alain Schneider (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, after carefull checking most of these data are not public so I would lean towards Delete at the very least and in any case, the history should be purge by an admin. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra (disambiguation)

Q60374066: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It should be merged into Q20799297 but automatic merge fails. Maybe the same with: Q60371864(French) Q60372192(Greek) Q60372373(Cyrillic) Q60372801(Persian) Q60372959(Hebrew) Q60373103(Belarusian) Q60373294(Armenian) Q60373492(Japanese) Q60373639(Georgian) Q60373849(Chinese) --Puzzlet Chung (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be merged now because they're interlinked with Property:P460. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In January @Moebeus: add Property:P460 to all the item and didn't merge them. maybe he can help us to understand why not merge them. - yona b (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@יונה בנדלאק: Hi there! It is the practise of Wikidata:WikiProject_Names that each spelling variant gets its own item, even if all that separates them is just an accent. Since each name should be linked to a corresponding disambiguation page, it's cleaner if those follow the same "rule". Rather than merging, the different spellings are instead linked through Property:P460. This has the added bonus of allowing more than one disambiguation page per language, of which there are quite a few. Anyways, that was the rationale, if you guys feel strongly about it I won't protest, but it would be helpful if a differing practise is anchored in some sort of written guidelines and cleared with Wikidata:WikiProject_Names. Moebeus (talk)

Q31274785

Vjatšeslav (Q31274785): male given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There exists Q19597898 Estopedist1 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically two different names, Q31274785 is a variant for the people who living in Estonia or Finland with the official Latin script, Q19597898 is for citizens of countries with the Cyrillic script as official. I'm not sure there's need on merging even if the names in fact direct equivalents of each other. --Wolverène (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q18974314

Q18974314: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Obsolete Magnus Manske (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnus Manske: There seem to be a lot of GeneDB ID's for this item. Why do you think they are wrong? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61873305

Pf_M76611 (Q61873305): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Obsolete, unused Magnus Manske (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q820728

Uther Lightbringer (Q820728): character in Warcraft: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Syrio posso aiutare? 11:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough per WD:N. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q31441239

Maria Angeles Guanzon Lapeña (Q31441239): psychologist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet Wikidata:Notability since it represents a page in the "Draft:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, even without the wikilink this person seems notable enough for WD. That said, the draft link should probably be removed (especially as this is a draft for a long time). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61866606

Q61866606: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It looks like most, if not all, of the links in this item are for "MediaWiki:" pages. For this reason, does not meet Wikidata:Notability since it represents a page in the "MediaWiki:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, please replace the item with interwiki links on all local pages. This was the main reason I created the item - to link the same code gadgets inbetween to make it easier to administrate. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61870979

Q61870979: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It looks like most, if not all, of the links in this item are for "MediaWiki:" pages. For this reason, does not meet Wikidata:Notability since it represents a page in the "MediaWiki:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, please replace the item with interwiki links on all local pages. This was the main reason I created the item - to link the same code gadgets inbetween to make it easier to administrate. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q64058765

Abdul Manan (Q64058765): Indonesia ulama: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy David (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: could you elaborate? De facto, this item does meet the notability policy, Wikidata:Notability criteria 3: "structural need". Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: There is a link from the teacher element only.There is no need to create elements of unknown pupils David (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason for deletion, this item clearly fulfill criteria 3 (and maybe also 2) of Wikidata:Notability. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q10846607

Bi-Heart (Q10846607): studio album by Joey Yung: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item Cohaf (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Cohaf: this item is clearly and obviously not empty. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON:. My error. Read empty item wrongly. However, does it meet notablity without any sitelinks? I'm not sure #2 in WD:N is met.Regards, --Cohaf (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cohaf:, no problem. Well all album by this singer have an item and several of them even have a en.wp article (see en:Category:Joey Yung albums), so I would say it's notable enough. Plus, it clearly met #3 of WD:N (if you want to have the full list of albums for instance). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of the articles I'm not that sure. I'm here as zhwiki deleted that only article created for this item twice. I'm unsure of #2. For #3 I'll follow community consensus, I'm unsure here. @VIGNERON:.--Cohaf (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cohaf: do you know why this article was deleted on zh.wp (I can't find it on zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2018/12/27) but not the other albums by the same singer? Is it really because of notability or is there other reasons? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON:Lacks notablity. Its lost in the page due to the some edit conflict. --Cohaf (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, found it zh:Special:Diff/52629670 (not sure why @Jimmy Xu: removed the deletion, it should be fixed), and actually it seems more like a lack of source than a lack of notability (obv, the second is related to the first but it's not the same thing, espacially as Wikipedia notabilities is not the same as Wikidata notability). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON. The article was deleted due to it cannot meet notablity standards of the Chinese Wikipedia. That's my homewiki anyway. This should be the correct interpretation. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q64624733

Q64624733: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

~~Not entirely sure as deletion pages are not explicitly mentioned on Wikidata:Notability~~ Edit: it is mentioned explicitly on Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria and there is two sitelinks but I believe this item should be deleted. Pinging the creator: Comte0. --VIGNERON (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create Q64624733 on purpose, I merely linked en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jérémy Amelin to fr:Discussion:Jérémy Amelin/Suppression using the Edit links on the left column of the english wikipedia. Both AfD are somewhat suspicious, the french one linking to the 2014 version but having been opened last friday, so I consider important to be able to easily switch between the french and english version. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Français :

@Comte0: ah ok, je vois. Dans ce cas, j'imagine que le mieux serait sans doute d'utiliser l'ancien système de lien interwiki à la main. Pour l'étrangeté de la PàS sur fr.wp c'est "normal", cela arrive quand l'on propose à la suppression une page déjà proposée à la suppression par le passé.

English:

Oh ok, I see. In that case, I guess the best would be tu use the old manual interwiki link system. For the strange RFD on fr.wp it' "normal", that happens when an article was previously send in RFD before.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use the database part of wikidata, so to me it's meant to allow interwiki links, and I'd feel silly having to use it the old way. But I can do it if it is deleted. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I can't really follow the conversation above, nor any of the non english pages. But the underlying item, Q3043658, meets Wikidata criteria. So, regardless of the result of any wikipedia deletion discussions, the item here would remain.Quakewoody (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Quakewoody: yes obviously Jérémy Amelin (Q3043658) is not concerned here and will remain. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q32851726

yōkai in a work of fiction (Q32851726): Yōkai coming from a work of fiction: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No articles, all yokai are from works of fiction ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 23:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping creator @Valentina.Anitnelav:.

Ping @Nihonjoe: you mean that no-one ever thought that yokai could be non-fictional and that there is not a single non-fictional work that talk about yokai? I'm not a specialist of this subject but this seems wrong.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: I'm not aware of any works that treat them as anything other than fiction. Regardless, there are no articles on any wiki that point to this item, so there is no valid reason to keep the data item. There's more value in allowing data items for userpages than for having a data item that will likely never have a valid article about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 17:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If deletion isn't acceptable, it should be merged with Q503186. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: this item is about "yōkai in a work of fiction" not "yōkai treated as fiction" ; it's close but different (a book can treat them as fiction without being a fiction book itself, isn't is the case of most books in en:Yōkai#Further_reading?). There is many others items with the same patern: yuki-onna in a work of fiction (Q61600414) ghost in a work of fiction (Q30061299), angel in a work of fiction (Q42092139), undead in a work of fiction (Q30061600), jinn in a work of fiction (Q30308127), sprite in a work of fiction (Q30318085) ; I'm guessing they are needed for ontological reasons (criteria 3 of Wikidata:Notability which is very different from Wikipedia concept of Notability), @Valentina.Anitnelav: could you maybe explain why these item are needed?

« there are no articles on any wiki », well just like many items on Wikidata (I would even say it's the vast majority ; almost all of the 20 million item about "scholarly article" don't have and will never have a Wikipedia article).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the vast majority of what is on Wikidata is pointing at nothing? What's the purpose, then? This is why I avoid this place. It makes no sense. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: « pointing at nothing », well it's pointing at a lot of things, just not Wikimedia projects. Why? very often because Wikipedias need them! One way to look at it is to think that Wikidata is like Commons but for Data. There is way more files on Commons than there are used on Wikipedia, it's a bit the same for Wikidata and data. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these items are needed for ontological reasons. From a practical point of view: characters from pop culture/fiction should be kept distinct from characters from mythology/folk belief to make it possible to e.g. search for all characters from folk belief without getting e.g. Rarity (Q9300505), Count Dracula (Q3266236) or Casper the Friendly Ghost (Q1442531) into the result set. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valentina.Anitnelav: thanks. So

Keep for me. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q31797707

maize (Q31797707): species of grass cultivated as a food crop: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

"Poes d' Trouk" is "Zea mays", than to be linked with Q11575 Lucyin (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucyin, pls comment the appearance of wa:Dinrêye d' awousse, was it correctly linked with Q11575? is it a synonym of "poes d' Trouk" resp. permanently duplicated page?.. We can't merge Q31797707 into Q11575 as it's obviously impossible to keep two Walloon pages at the same time in one item. --Wolverène (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"dinrêye d' awousse" means "august cereal", right? then you'd better replace this page to a new item (unless it has some special meaning in the language). Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Q31797707 is a duplicate of Q11575; is "Dinrêye d' awousse" the same as cereal grain (Q12117) or something more specific? Also is rust (Q25634296) the same as rust (Q4273292) or only one of the items listed at fr:Rouille (maladie)#Liste des maladies appelées « rouilles » en français? Peter James (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q61477538

Luigi Marino (Q61477538): Italian chemist (1873-1922): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Information provided (called Luigi Marino, wrote things, born in the 19th century, died in the 20th century) is not sufficient to identify this problem Andre Engels (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andre Engels: indeed, it needs some more information but I would say it should be kept (unless no information are added of course). @Marco Chemello (BEIC): could you add some mort information? And is it the same person as Luigi Marino (Q64782270)? (doesn't look like but checking to be sure) Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Marino (also Luigi Marino-Zuco) 1 April 1873 - 6 or 7 December 1922[15] may be the same person but I'm not certain. Peter James (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q2164022

rollsign (Q2164022): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Different capitalisation of Q389719, page unused by Wikipedia and prevents me from adding da, de, nl, zh to actual page --Hkbusfan (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hkbusfan: The Japanese articles need to be merged first. Please ask help here. Bencemac (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q45290019

coat of arms of Vegan flag (Q45290019): Coat of arms: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax, fictional. No such thing. P199 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: not sure to understand where the hoax is, it's referenced and seems notable enough for WD for me. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a Hoax, you may argue its not notable enough but it surely exist. Sokuya (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I certainly question if this indeed is notable enough for a wikidata item. --P199 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: unclear but it looks like it, per criteria 2 at least (and maybe criteria 3 with vegan flag (Q33403901)). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk deletion request

Q63343741 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q63126148 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q63126147 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q63126145 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q63126144 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

lacks notability, malformed, cleanup of a batch gone wrong by @Wpbloyd:. --- Jura 10:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain a bit more what is wrong? They seems to fulfill at least the criteria 3 of WD:N. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The names seem to be wrong. I think the uploader might have misaligned columns on their spreadsheets. Wikidata is not a dump. --- Jura 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q3253629

Q3253629: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty list items. list on frwiki was deleted and other sitelinks belong to Q22809413. @Roy17: fyi --- Jura 15:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on for now. @Jura1: you have not fulfilled goal 2.--Roy17 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it's your personal goal, please ensure to fullfil it. Please refrain from asking users to do what bots do automatically. --- Jura 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q65037109

Q65037109: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Founder of non-notable/ficticious micronation. Fails WD:N. Hiàn (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q65054952

Dell pls, created erroneously, already have Q65049705

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}