Wikidata:Requests for deletions - Wikidata

== {{Q|ITEMID}} ==
{{rfd links|ITEMID|REASON}}
A_reason_why_the_item_should_be deleted. --~~~~

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/2024/10/04.

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

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

• 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)Reply

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

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

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

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

2MM followers on instagram seems reasonable? BrokenSegue (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did the number of followers result in coverage in serious sources? If not, then the number alone probably isn't enough to establish notability. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:409F:4EC:6E03:43FB 17:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Social media metrics like followers, views, or "likes" aren't an indicator of notability. (Particularly given that there's a whole cottage industry dedicated to falsifying these metrics.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this person is pretty notable with considerable social media following across almost all platforms. She also seems to have a Google knowledge graph. She is also verified across almost all platforms (although this can be paid for in a few ones now) but she is verified in the ones that cannot be paid for as well. She also seems to have a few articles like this one on okmagazine or this one on Dexterto. Structureddata (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep Boowa & Kwala (Q23906515) Notable pre-school animation series, eg see https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2001/03/21/www-boowakwala-com_165091_1819218.html and https://www.awn.com/news/boowa-kwala-make-their-us-debut-dvd Piecesofuk (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would you also keep all the other items or just the main one? --Dorades (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hello,

that blog post is a conceptual entity and it is described by serious and publicly available references: it has a DOI identifier and as a piece of scholarly communication is referenced by Crossref, The Rogue Scholar as well as in social media. Furthermore, a copy of it is available in the Internet archive.

I would argue that this makes it indeed notable, especially comparing it to most of the currently 2262 instances of blog posts on Wikidata. SvenLieber (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, how can these references be considered "serious" if they are created by yourself? We would need some independent source that makes it possible to evaluate the notability of your texts (e. g. referenced in scientific texts, published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.). In general, this is not about the quality or importance of your texts, but about their notability according to WD:N. --Dorades (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blog posts being added probably happened because Wikidata seems unable to define what level of granularity is appropriate for different classes of things, provided there is no Wikipedia page. Infrastruktur (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The item's history confuses me. Was this item repurposed? Is one or all of the contributors paid (cf. User:InquisitiveMindset)? What happened to all the identifiers of the Marius Heinrich this item was representing in the beginning? Are they the same person? Why did a published computer scientist revoke his ORCID? --Dorades (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad, this publication and another one are not peer-reviewed and seem to be self-published. --Dorades (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello I have entered all the information on the page to the best of my knowledge and ability, based on the data I could find on the internet. However, I did not consider the possibility of a name conflict or that the information might overlap with that of other individuals. If the page does not meet the standards, or if I have made any mistakes, I kindly request its removal. Sorry InquisitiveMindset (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a connection to Q108520425. Could also be the same person as Q125622939. --Dorades (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

• 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)Reply

  natural object (Q1970309)? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

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

Notability? Dorades (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not finished with this one and have more referencing to add, but he seems to meet all of the notability requirements, though is not particularly famous - is that a policy? I cannot see it anywhere.

Not sure what the link is that I am seeing is to a dental practice in relation to this entity? ELdEL69 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are referring to the notability requirements stated on WD:N, which ones does this item meet in your view? Being famous is not part of the criteria.

I don't get which link "to a dental practice" you mean? --Dorades (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to assume whatever you like, it has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation.

Is it not? So, then I guess that means that this guy meets the requirements then - just like every other entity on this planet, past/present and future - as he is clearly distinguishable from other entities. Or is there something I have missed about what an entity is and that Wikidata is about cataloguing them to help Wiki projects?

Specifically in the notability requirements it state "...to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large'...if it meets at least one of the three criteria below..."

That means any entity is worth of inclusion, but meets notability for wikidata straight away if it has already been included on another wiki project - as you can see in the statements, I found an image of him on wikidata. ELdEL69 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What a coincidence that you found an image on Commons that was uploaded two minutes before you added it here. I will refrain from explaining anything about WD:N to you since "it has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation". --Dorades (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This guy is in Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - and I am pretty sure that trumps 99% of other references sources uses for notability in any Wikiproject. I had nothing to do with that image, and had not noticed the upload time or date. I can see it's been deleted though - just a co-incidence, is it? Like the two random comments below, made at the same time. That is more than a little suspicious and by the look of it, goes against the spirit of Wiki projects, doesn't it? ELdEL69 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete as non-notable and promotional Jamie7687 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Doesn't appear notable and I don't think that the distant relatives qualify for structural need. --William Graham (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep clearly notable, I found him in Debrett's ELdEL69 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Greetings from Commons. I came here to nominate this for deletion as spam and saw it was already nominated. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep This item should be kept because it meets Wikidata's notability criteria. It is linked to a significant topic with verifiable sources, and is mentioned in the Debrett's Baronetage and Peerage. Louissiebert (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

How is that item helpful for this purpose if there is not even a birth date stated? --Dorades (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for pointing this out. Sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about Wikidata as I mostly work on Commons. Many of my fellow wikimedian, photographers have wikidata items, and I used those items as references. Please let me know if there is anything to add or remove from this particular item. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

Which references are you referring to? --Dorades (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep I believe it's reasonable and consistent with current practice to have items for photographers who contribute substantially to Commons. These items could become useful for the purpose mentioned by @RAN whenever a photographer's death is reported (hopefully not any time soon), or potentially in other cases. A change in the handling of photographer items would probably need to be a higher-level discussion, and I believe that many other photographer items would need to be (re-)considered for deletion if the discussion went that way (e.g. Tany Solovey (Q120548770), which I unsuccessfully nominated last year). Jamie7687 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Pygame - Iníciese en el desarrollo de video juegos en Python (Q120000704) is a published book, so probably notable. Actually, it's more how we consider ENI editions (Q53343983) as a reliable editing house. Fralambert (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some may be borderline (eg. Q62662230) but most seems notable enough for Wikidata. @Fralambert: I don't see a problem ENI editions (Q53343983) ; I'm more concerned about Kindle Direct Publishing (Q15823534). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Books published at ENI éditions should not be deleted IMO. Thibaut (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I would mark WPF : développez des applications structurées (MVVM, XAML...) (Q53925659), WPF : développez des applications structurées (MVVM, XAML...) (Q54278610), Programmation en C# : préparation aux certifications MCSA - Examen 70-483 (Q54762338), Informatique quantique : de la physique quantique à la programmation quantique en Q# (Q59910275), Pygame - Initiez-vous au développement de jeux vidéo en Python (Q66818167), Traitement automatique du langage naturel avec Python : Le NLP avec spaCy et NLTK (Q124364549) and Pygame - Iníciese en el desarrollo de video juegos en Python (Q120000704) as notable since they are published by ENI. Fralambert (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Did write a book published by Lioncrest Publishing (Q125781254). [1]. Fralambert (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

--VIGNERON (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep It looks like something went wrong in the linking at The Peerage, we have two men married in the 1800s. I suspect that it was too difficult to untangle and The Peerage just deleted the people. I will try and fix the errors and supply identifiers for Familysearch and Findagrave. If I run into the same problem, that it is too difficult to untangle, I will change to delete for some of the people. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )! (I did have a quick search but didn't found other sources, thanks a lot for finding them). I withdraw my request for these items but I still wonder if we should delete Margaret Ryan (Q76189137), you repurposed it but it feels very wrong (ironically, it's the exactly what The Peerage did that cause the problem that we want to avoid). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • When I looked at the tree in Ancestry and Familysearch and in the Australian birth and death index, all the information that had been "Thomas" was actually for "Margaret", there already was an entry for "Thomas" in Wikidata, he was listed as a child twice. We maintain a large list of Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/The Peerage errors. It looks like these entries were created as part of a The Peerage project on the pioneer families of Australia. I can see why The Peerage gave up, it would have been easier to just delete and start over at some future time, it took me several hours to fix. It is a shame that Australia does not preserve their censuses, after collating the data, they destroy the originals with all the family information. The England census fully preserved goes back to 1841 and the first USA census to name all family members was in 1850 and is fully preserved. --RAN (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Note that The Peerage re-uses identifiers, if entries get merged. I think the marriage data was extracted (by me) a bit after the initial items were extracted. The result is that there are a few cases where the marriage, between people who had the identifiers when I extracted it, has been incorrectly added to the item for the person who previously had that identifier, rather than the person who now has that identifier (or rather, who had the identifier when I extracted the marriages). By checking back both bride and groom to the Peerage site, it is usually possible to identify who actually got married, and what their wikidata items are. Jheald (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Keep Notable: passes at least WDN3 as he is listed as the chief operating officer (P1789) of Commercial Metals Company (Q5152510) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Metals_Company Piecesofuk (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Q89125201: 2017 short film: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

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

 Note: Q126028498 is a redirect to Q89121278 and should be deleted at the same time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete William Graham (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

  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)Reply

  There is also a link from BoOzy’ OS and the Cristal Gem (Q17622139). Peter James (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

It exists according to de:Vachendorf#Gemeindegliederung where it is described as a parish village (Q1493533); it also contains a Rathaus (Q543654) so municipality seat (Q15303838) is correct. I improved the coordinates; the sources were originally not very precise. Peter James (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

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

Note that @BergwachtBern is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Jamie7687 (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete non-notable and promotional; Commons category has nothing but promotional photos of subject Jamie7687 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep No the same one is the building the other one the school. Fralambert (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The identifier in DIBAVOD ID (P7227) is for a side stream (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82074010) - I don't know if it should be a separate item, an alternative would be to merge them but I'm unsure of the qualifiers to use on the identifiers. Peter James (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Notability not shown Gymnicus (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment For the history -- the item was created by a regular contributor, not by an IP user. --Wolverène (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Not notable. And in general "fictional universe" is a tortured ontology that rarely applies where it is used. William Graham (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep Structural need--Trade (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's over-structuring, as for me, definitely redundant. Technically, every narrative work (short story, novel, film, TV series, etc.) has its own fictional universe, not necessary well described by reliable sources or even by its creator(s). Would be strange to create as many items for those universes as possible (at least, the vast majority is not unique). The item contains even no proof in the item that the Great Mouse Detective universe is really independent from other Disney film universes. --Wolverène (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is also no proof in the item that the Great Mouse Detective universe is independent from the Marvel Cinematic universe. Trade (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course, there is none. Marvel was not a part of The Walt Disney Company in 1986. --Wolverène (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't mean they couldn't have been taking place in the same universe Trade (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are like an infinite number of Marvel universes Dronebogus (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

 Delete. A related discussion took place regarding "Disney fictional universes" (Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/06/28#Q101099318); my comments there generally apply to this entity as well. That Professor Ratigan (Q1622838) (for example) is a character appearing in The Great Mouse Detective can be described adequately using present in work (P1441); there's no need to invoke a "fictional universe" to describe that relationship. (User:Adamant1 also astutely mentions that the "fictional universe" of this film is essentially just "late 1800s London".) Omphalographer (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Per User:Omphalographer. The movie takes place in London, which isn't a "universe." Otherwise any movie or location from one would qualify as a "universe." --Adamant1 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Every creative work by it's very nature have a location that ot takes place in some location. Citing the existence of the narrative location as a reason for deleting the narrative universe is nonsensical.

The idea of a fictional universe and the temporal/spatial setting of a work are slightly different things. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Certainly, but there's also a lot of fictional works whose settings are so grounded in reality that it's impossible to justify a claim that they exist in a distinct "fictional universe". Consider The Catcher in the Rye, for instance - its setting is unambiguously New York City in the mid-20th century. It would be entirely unnecessary to divorce it from that reality by describing it and its characters as existing in a "Catcher in the Rye fictional universe". Omphalographer (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• @Valentina.Anitnelav:--Trade (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I tend to agree with Xezbeth but I also see the concerns raised by other users. In general there is no use of a fictional universe item for a universe described by only one work (unless the universe itself is described in secondary sources, of course) but we don't require more than one work, either. I think we should make it clear (e.g. in Wikidata:WikiProject_Fictional_universes) that it is not necessary to create a fictional universe item just to link characters, (fictional) locations, etc. It is fine if a character does not have a statement from narrative universe (P1080) (I tend to blame tools like Recoin for rather excessive creations of fictional universe items as this tool suggests an item may be incomplete if it does not have statements like from narrative universe (P1080)).

I had a look at fictional universes described by only one work: query and there are 344 cases, currently. While some may be legit, others seem a bit much. Besides Romeo and Juliet universe (Q124215075) we have an own item for the 1996 adaption Romeo + Juliet (Romeo + Juliet universe (Q124325720)), for example. The same is the case for The Great Mouse Detective and the novel it is based on (Basil universe (Q124026015) and The Great Mouse Detective universe (Q100658686)). I don't doubt that film and literary work are set in different fictional universes, but this points into the direction of creating an own fictional universe for every work and I don't think that we want that. If we decide to delete one fictional universe item because it is of little use we should delete all of these items and make it clear on the relevant project pages that these are not wanted. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I started a discussion about notability criteria for fictional universes here: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_universes#Notability_criteria_for_fictional_universes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete insufficient sources provided showing it exists as a recognized concept Dronebogus (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Hoax, see discussion on [2] Lemonaka (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep Have a sitelink. Need to be deleted on tawiki first. Fralambert (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is just a subpage in the project namespace. --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Edward2024 Best ask a oversight to delete the item as stated in Wikidata:Living people. I highly doubt it will be deleted here. Fralambert (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is "an oversight" and how do I ask them to delete it please? Sorry, I have not used Wiki before. 148.252.132.30 19:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:Oversight is the policy; the email is oversight@wikidata.org (or contact one of the oversighters via a link on the policy page). Although I don't think the oversight feature is approved for this use, all oversighters are also administrators and can delete items according to other policies. Peter James (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep Public figure, if they want we can reduce the birthday to as it appears in the gov record for their corporate position. There is no privacy for a corporate officers in the UK, for a reason. The gov wants accountability for corporate officers to prevent malfeasance. That is why they have to be registered. --RAN (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
•  Delete The Peerage person ID (P4638) is not a reliable source and should only be used as an identifier in most cases. I opposed mass deletion of that data import but would have preferred deletion for some categories (e.g. any living person who is not a hereditary peer, life peer or baronet and does not have another reason for notability from another source or Wikipedia article). Companies House officer ID (P5297) is not an indication of notability; information may be available but that doesn't mean it should be made more visible by adding it to Wikidata where it is not maintained . Most people in that database are not public figures and there is no reason to add their information to Wikidata. One of the companies is currently notable as it has a Wikipedia article, but the article has been tagged for notability since 2016. We don't consistently have items for directors of FTSE 100 companies and where we do they are not always linked and are not watched for vandalism; the name of Q69580854, the CEO of Tesco, was changed in 2021 and it had not been reverted until today. I don't think it is private information, as it is from public sources and not the result of hacking or any breach of confidentiality, or even anything that was legitimately published but not intended to be widely available. The living people policy and the ability to maintain Wikidata are still reasons to delete. Peter James (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Peter James, this is my first time using this page so I don't really understand the comments above. It looks like someone is saying the page about me can't be deleted. How is that possible? I know I am on Companies House, but it doesn't mean I should be forced to have an additional page with my name on it - or have times changed so much that I have no control over pages online that mention me? I have managed to delete several pages already this week, but this Wiki page is confusing. Please let me know if there is anything I can do, thank you so much. 148.252.132.30 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It depends on the outcome of this discussion. Many requests to delete are not successful, but that is usually because there is structural need for an item, such as linking academic articles with their authors. Here the links are only genealogical and from items that are only exist from other genealogical items - and if that is notability, most people are notable. Peter James (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• If someone wants to be a private person, they probably should not be giving interviews. See: https://www.goabroad.com/interviews/thalassa-de-burgh-milne-director-of-intern-madrid How is someone with the screenname "Edward" wanting to delete info on Thalassa Sophie de Burgh-Milne? They wrote: "my name and my personal information", but their screenname is Edward. --RAN (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. CptViraj (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep Structural need as author of two academic article. Fralambert (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Clearly notable. 178.37.233.37 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

All these records have websites. Please take a look again. Thank you. Hkbulibdmss (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hkbulibdmss Looking at these items I'm a little confused, are they supposed to be items for websites? Because the descriptions don't always make this clear and several of them don't have "instance of: website" or similar.StarTrekker (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. We will add "instance of: website" later. Hkbulibdmss (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents — Yuri V (о•в) 15:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete Simply, does not meet Wikidata:Notability. No sources or knowledge bases linked. It is just adding all family tree of unnotable individuals. --Friend (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

 Delete The arguments for keeping this make absolutely no sense what-so-ever. How exactly is deleting this a war against her parents? Lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notable (3rd criterion), but we need source, especially in Iryna Farion (Q2034898) 178.37.233.37 00:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep. Simply, it is a rejection of Iryna Farion, a war against her parents. — Yuri V (о•в) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC).Reply

 Delete Simply, does not meet Wikidata:Notability. No sources or knowledge bases stated. It is just adding all family tree of unnotable individuals. --Friend (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  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)Reply

 Delete This clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Items about people don't get a special pass from having to follow them either. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notable (3rd criterion), but we need source, especially in Iryna Farion (Q2034898) 178.37.233.37 00:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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)Reply

All of these entities should clearly be deleted; they don't identify real scientific articles. Having a DOI assigned does not automatically confer notability.

Most of the titles which resemble scientific articles are copied from real articles with different DOIs; for instance, New Nanostructured Li2S/Silicon Rechargeable Battery with High Specific Energy (Q59756425) (allegedly doi:10.4016/27363.01) is a doppelgänger of New nanostructured Li2S/silicon rechargeable battery with high specific energy (Q46233204) (doi:10.1021/nl100504q). Omphalographer (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is very problematic. Seems deliberate.StarTrekker (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Eligibility Rockpeterson (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Eligibility Rockpeterson (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

•  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)Reply

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I spend quite some time adding popular online marketing podcasts (see my contribution list) that are all in talk show format, episodes, hosts, prominent talk show guests and background information and multiple of them now show inbound links from this deletion request. Seeing this is quite frustrating. I am quite new to wikidata and don't fully understand why you would want to delete this information. From what I understand some of my entries miss sitelinks to match the notability guidelines and I need to connect them e.g. add the podcasts e.g to the list of german podcasts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:German_podcasts) so they fullfill the notability guideline. I am willing to work on that.

I also want to make some points about the notability of some items of your deletion list:

Q127775949 - Michael King is the person that exposed one of the biggest leaks about the Google Algorithm from the last years, together with Rand Fishkin (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Michael+King%22+google+leak)

Q127790498 - Roxana Stingu is quite a public figure in the women in tech movement.

Q125523927 - Audisto and it's CTO / CEO are quite known for their work regarding tech SEO with citation of work published by Audisto in the Wikipedia (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+audisto) going back to 2015. They are especially known for their detailed guides (https://audisto.com/guides/)

-- Q125397892 - This is the german version of an article originally published by Audisto and written by Tobias Schwarz (Q124868557) and Christian Müller (https://audisto.com/guides/canonical/), that is also cited in the English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_link_element#cite_note-Audisto_GmbH-3)

Most of the other speakers listed at the Tech SEO Summit entry could also be connected to popular podcasts. I would also be willing to work on that. PodcastMage (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added multiple contributions and references from and to entities of the two batches indicating the affiliation with already existing entities within Wikidata and Wikipedia. For some of the entities there are citations of their work within Wikipedia, however I do not know if the citations should be changed to use the Cite_Q-Template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q) in this case. PodcastMage (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Popularity on its own is not relevant for judging the notability of an item in the Wikidata sense. Linking items together that are not notable without these links is also not a good way to prove notability. Also, self published sources are usually not considered serious as demanded by WD:N #2. Can you add independent coverage from serious sources, e. g. from mainstream media etc.? --Dorades (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Got the point. So with independent coverage from serious sources you mean this (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q127775949&diff=2222443545&oldid=2222044321), right? Is this the right spot to add these references and is this amount of references adequate (there are plenty more out there, but I only added the ones I considered most relevant to prove the point) or should there be more? Is this enough in terms of notability for you to keep Michael King and how about the fact that he talks about exactly the topic he got the news coverage for at the Tech SEO Summit? If this changes your opinion about some of the items, please update your batches to reflect that and I will see if similar references can be found for the remaining items. Note: First I was only interested in the podcasts and the corresponding items I added, but now you got me hooked to prove the point for more items of your deletion request because to me they are relevant background, but I totally get that they need to be considered relevant by other people e.g. you as well. PodcastMage (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added references (that are in my opinion serious sources) regarding the notability of Audisto (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q125523927&diff=2222723884&oldid=2212511540) and also it's CEO (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q125187894&diff=2222541861&oldid=2222008770). PodcastMage (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, references should support a specific claim, e. g. when someone is called "SEO expert" the respective source should be used for the statement that someone has the occupation (P106): SEO specialist (Q4048723). There is no limit on how many sources can be added (as far as I know), but some contributors think that a handful of references is enough to support one single claim. Only considering the most relevant ones is a good approach in my opinion.

The notability for Michael King (Q127775949) seems borderline to me, based on the references you added. But for me it's enough to mark my RFD for Michael King (Q127775949) as  Withdrawn. I can't judge the reliability of Website Boosting (Q120468799), thus I am also marking Audisto (Q125523927) as  Withdrawn. I am not convinced by the references for Sören Bendig (Q125187894). In the end, it's not up to me to decide to keep or to delete these items, but to the admins. --Dorades (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, this helps me a lot! From my understanding adding the founders and the CEO of a company would be considered "structural need", as it completes important information about a company and therefore makes it more useful, right? With the same intention I added individual episodes to podcasts where persons that I consider important or that already had Wikidata entries appeared. Regarding Sören Bendig (Q125187894): I also added the information that he was deputy chairman and later chairman of one of the committies of the German Association for the Digital Economy (Q1008864), a association where large companies like Deutsche Telekom, ProSiebenSat.1 Media and RTL Deutschland are members (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q1008864). Regarding Michael King (Q127775949): I will try to add more references about him in the future to address your doubts. Regarding Website Boosting (Q120468799): It is a well known magazine in the German online marketing szene since 2010 and with 17,500 copies printed every two months. In addition the editor in chief is a well known professor who founded two degree programs at the FH Würzburg - University of Applied Sciences. I will also try to add more references about him in the future. Hopefully I find some time at the weekend. PodcastMage (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

When working on the references for Michael King (Q127775949): I discovered that he is also known as a rapper and there is another Wikidata entry for him Mic King (Q112819455). I think those two entries should be merged. I added some of his music profiles to the first entity. PodcastMage (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I merged the two entities of Michael King. In addition I added references for both, René Dhemant (Q127776614) and Tobias Schwarz (Q124868557). René Dhemant is a lecturer at the AFS Academy, which was launched in 2012 as the first state-approved training course for search engine optimization (https://www.websiteboosting.com/fileadmin/user_upload/2013/_19/PDF/028-029_afs_website_boosting_019.pdf) in Germany. Tobias Schwarz was also a lecturer there in the early days of the academy, as the article shows. I have added the relevant references. I have also added further references for René Dhermant, such as his participation in podcasts, and also some for Tobias Schwarz. I will work on the remaining profiles as soon as I find a little more time, as this is all quite time consuming. PodcastMage (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep I finished my work adding references and background to the main entries of this deletion request and my opinion is to keep the entries as most of them refer to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references. I consider the rest of the entries to fulfill a structural need as they are all clearly connected to other entries that are not marked for deletion and make these entries more valuable. All statements I found in the entries were valid and understandable to me. Most of the persons within this deletion request are well known conference speakers, have appearances as experts in their field of work in multiple podcasts (all listed within the linked podchaser profiles; not all of them are present at Wikidata), are lecturers or have demonstrably held positions in organizations that are already present on Wikidata. If individual entries are still considered not notable, I would welcome separate deletion requests being made for these entries instead of continuing to pursue this bulk deletion request. My work is done here and I'll move on to work on other things now. I consider the state of this ready for a decision by the admins. PodcastMage (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Someone added a hashtag to the entry, which allowed me to add 4 more references that show that the event actually took place. A follow up event seems to be planned for 2025. PodcastMage (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Spam Yann (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  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)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment Currently this item has no real links. I think "possible carcinogen" is the wrong way to model substances. In principle, a given substance either is or isn't a carcinogen (Q187661), even if we don't currently know which. It would be better to say instance of (P31) carcinogen (Q187661) with qualifier possibly (Q30230067). 73.223.72.200 04:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notable and linked to notable thesis item (Scenarios of Encounter: Place, Performance, and Commemoration in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa and London (Q127592736) 178.37.233.37 00:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

@Yiyi Are you saying this is a made-up building? It's in heritage registers... Ping @Nvitucci the creator of this item. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vojtěch Dostál It could be a church with a different name, but in Gorla Minore there aren't buildings with this name AND all the other churches in Gorla Minore are yet on Wikidata. I live nearby and I also did some research: definitely it doesn't exist. Yiyi .... (talk!) 12:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What if it existed but was demolished? Then it would still deserve to have an item... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vojtěch Dostál I think Q116943131 could be the same church. I have no informations about churches demolished in Gorla Minore. Yiyi .... (talk!) 08:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems like an erroneous duplicate of the preceeding QID Q27987554 Uschoen (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep I was able to find 16 people on Wikidata with this given name (though admittedly, none with it as the first or primary given name). --Quesotiotyo (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Quesotiotyo: Are you sure these are actual given names, not just someone having two or more surnames?StarTrekker (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@StarTrekker Yes, as the family names for these people were all clearly evident (and only one was a married woman, otherwise they likely would not have more than one surname).

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Quesotiotyo: That is very untrue, it's not unusual at all for people to have more than one surname, in several cultures it's even the standard. Even among English speakers it's not unusul for persons to have both a paternal and a maternal family name before marriage.StarTrekker (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

query

Se background below for what a Systematic internaliser is.

These are the reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

It would be a lot of work to to keep this information up to date. Take a look at the products the SI-status apply, see [3] for an example (there are a total of 24 products listed there)

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

The number of possible items with MIC market code (P7534) is unlikely to be close to "every bench in every protected area in Sweden" (unless Sweden has very few benches). There is also an identifier for them, which is why the items were created; benches are unlikely to be registered with a central authority. I agree they should probably not be separate items, but the identifiers should be moved to existing items or new items. Peter James (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am firmly against deletion. If MIC found them important enough to issue a MIC ID, then they should be important enough for WD as well.

• "they are a role on an existing firm and should never have been imported as separate items"
  • Let's take Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Bank (Q806189) as an example. You claim that Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A - Systematic Internaliser (Q93359236) should be merged to it. But are you sure that it's the same company and not a subsidiary?
  • Eg consider Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. - UK - Systematic Internaliser (Q114587067), it surely is a subsidiary (separate company) since it's in a separate country.
  • By your reasoning, Fundación BBVA (Q30296991) could also be merged: it "only" has a "foundation" status in some jurisdiction ;-)
  • This said, if you know that the SI function of BBVA is done by BBVA itself and not a subsidiary, please do the merge (which will move the type "SI" and the MIC to the BBVA item)
• "not seen anyone interested in keeping this information updated": We've updated MIC import 3x. And can you point to any WD subset of over 1k entities that is completely up to date with its source data?
• "SI is a status of a company in a certain market": That's not true. SIs are a specific sort of stock exchange or market. Many financial institutions perform various services, including specific kinds of exchanges and markets. "SI" is an important role to warrant its own type, just like "stock exchange" or "pension fund"
• "The level of detail in the SI system is not relevant for Wikidata": Do you also argue that "there are too many exchanges", thus they are not interesting?
• "I suggest they create a financial Wikibase": this is just discrimination! Why would you be the person to decide how much financial info is appropriate for WD?

Cheers! -- Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

1. even if they are different companies, they still don't seem relevant to have in WD (from my perspective).
2. the first example you mention is interesting. I found the scope of the BBVA when acting as a SI. Reading that it is clear that SI is a role that is chosen by the entity:

BBVA has voluntarily decided to act as SI for certain bonds and other forms of securitised debt and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives contracts, in accordance with article 18 of MiFIR.

So a SI is not a company per se. It is a role and that role ONLY applies to certain products and services. They differ between SIs.

IF we were to keep this information a data consumer would DEFINITELY want to know which type of products this entity acts as SI for. In the case of Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Bank (Q806189) the import was done from a database that did not contain links between the bank and the SI role (voluntarily chosen by the bank). Without this information I would consider this a good example of a bad import. That is an import that inflates the number of items in Wikidata but fails to connect them to other items in a way that makes good sense to keep over time.

I invite others to judge whether these role-items are worth having or if they could be better reduced to a single statement like so on the entity that takes on that role according to some source like the one I provided above:

role -> systematic interalizer -> start time = x, applies to = product x, applies to = service y, MIC market code = BBVA, etc.

Please note that it is much easier to polute a database with half-ass imports than it is to find a good source and add statements like the above for each SI in the database. IMO this should have been discussed in a WikiProject Finance (does not exist yet) or WikiProject Economics, but I assume it has not, please correct me if I'm wrong and provide a link to the discussion about modeling in that case.

I suggest we delete these garbage items and use this an example of how not to do an import. So9q (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Self-promo Yann (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold Currently notable due to etwiki link, but there's a DR there, so awaiting that decision. Only incoming link is video clip by the artist, so that can be ignored to establish notability. Mbch331 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

May be mentioned in Kes on kes? Eesti 2000 (an Estonian biographical dictionary? see the reference for P31), I am not sure I am able to check if he was mentioned, but if there is an article about him he has to be notable. --Wolverène (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notable as linked to Sirje Endre (Q12375095) and sourced per above (in Sirje Endre (Q12375095) item father (P22) statement). 178.37.233.37 00:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which one is nomineted to deletion. She is his mother. Yousiphh (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DeltaBot what about now? Yousiphh (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added due to adding OpenStreetMap node with her public artwork on a parking garage near me:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12147972009

https://imgur.com/artwork-Aqpo3TE

https://imgur.com/artwork-cFtMBiU Cfeast (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there journalistic coverage, e. g. articles in newspapers? --Dorades (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's a news article about her that mentions the artwork in question:

https://hconews.com/2019/11/26/heather-novak-peterson/ Cfeast (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's another article about her:

https://canvasrebel.com/meet-heather-novak-peterson/ Cfeast (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those two links look like sponsored content and a republished press release. I'm not sure they're especially serious. William Graham (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's mentioned in travel guides, and notable enough for Wikidata (and possibly useful for Commons). Peter James (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My comment was based on this being Playa Chiquita, but the original label was "beach, COSTA RICA" and it's possible the beach depicted is Playa Punta Uva, not Playa Chiquita. Peter James (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I think it should stay, the gps data from the camera shows it at the new name. --RAN (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

"I would be grateful if this page could be removed about me (see above)

I was alerted that it was just added.

I am no longer a comedian and no longer a surgeon either and would be grateful if the page could be deleted. I am working full time in the NHS and such pages existing will be considered a breach of professionalism and may result in NHS disciplinary action against me. I don’t know who added the page but would be grateful if it could be taken down as soon as possible. Many thanks

Jenan Younis <email deleted>" DS (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per this interview, Dr. Younis is "a BBC New Voices Competition winner and Funny Women finalist", and a search of Google News shows enough media coverage that she might even meet notability criteria for enwiki. I also note the apparent contradiction between "no longer a surgeon" and "working full time in the NHS". If there is indeed a "breach in professionalism" such that it could result in "disciplinary action", surely it was when she began performing standup, or when she organized and launched a MENA-themed comedy festival; our documentation is only a minimal component thereof. DS (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the contradiction you stated - there are many other professions other than surgeon within the nhs. It’s not unheard of to change specialties/departments. Therefore it’s possible to work full time in the nhs and no longer be a surgeon. I’m sure you can appreciate that I’d rather not share private documentation that would be prove the issue with professionalism/potential disciplinary action that would be lodged against me. If you search online you can see I have no future gigs planned and haven’t had any scheduled for quite some time. I would be most grateful if the entry on me would be deleted. 2.26.231.49 00:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I do not see anything that would "be considered a breach of professionalism". --RAN (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It’s also very presumptuous if you to assume you know what consists of a breach of professionalism. This entry is about me and I have asked politely if you could remove it as it poses a risk to my current employment and income on grounds of professionalism. As I explained I am no longer a surgeon nor a comedian so the content of the page itself is also inaccurate. I would be grateful if you would delete it please. I do not want to have to escalate the matter to a legal team. 2.26.231.49 08:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The sources are out there. Are you going to ask the BBC and the Guardian to take down their coverage of you? DS (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: Some IP address just posted a comment at Talk:Q130234847. Samoasambia ✎ 19:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep While we should certainly remove any information that is private or unverifiable, it seems like this person is notable. Jamie7687 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable, advertisement Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep While English Wikipedia may only be for people that have achieved some sort of fame, Wikidata allows anyone that can be described by serious and public sources to have an entry, so long as they are not involved in self-promotion. A "local newspaper" is both serious and public, and dead people are not involved in self-promotion, because they are dead. There is also a structural need as a descendant of Sophus Pihl, who does have a biography in Wikipedia. See for example: w:Lincoln family where people can use our resources to educate themselves about family relationships. --RAN (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Just in the US more than 3,000,000 people die per year. There is no point in having every single person that die or all graduates from Harvard or all the descendants of Gengis Khan.None of them are notable just because they belong to one of these groups. Günther Frager (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• And Findagrave is able to manage 226 million human entries and 564,000 cemetery entries that I can search in a few seconds and find the one I am looking for. Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Is your argument that an obituary is not "serious" or not "publicly available"? Just because 3,000,000 die each year that doesn't mean that someone will take the time to create those entries. It would take 5.7 years to create 3,000,000 entries at one a minute, working 24 hours a day. Please stick to Wikidata rules on notability. The entry also has a Findagrave identifier which shows the person's grave marker that confirms the data in the entry. The entry also has a Familysearch identifier which links to 13 documents that confirm the data in the entry. The FamilySearch database has over 1 billion unique human entries, and again I was able to find the entry for Pihl in a few seconds. --RAN (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The necrology section of a newspaper is not journalism. The family or the funeral service writes it and pays for its publication. It is the same as someone that pays for a classified advertisement, or someone that writes a blog post about their deceased grandmother. I'm not arguing that we just include all of them before include this particular entry, I'm arguing that we should not add random entries of entities that have no relevance. It is the same as adding an entry about a random company just because it appears in https://annuaire-entreprises.data.gouv.fr/ or because they appeared in a public notice indexed by https://www.masspublicnotices.org/. Günther Frager (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You mentioned "relevance", since you can't read people's minds or predict what people will be searching for in the future, how do you know what people find relevant? Wikidata does not care what type of "journalism" is involved, it just must be a "serious" and "publicly available" reference. It doesn't matter whether it was written by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, or the funeral director, or the person's child. Even if it contains an error, we still use that fact and deprecate it. A public notice or a telephone directory would only give one or two data points. We have a dozen facts about this dead person. If you want to lobby for changing the Notability rules for Wikidata, the way to do that is at Village Pump, not deleting one entry that you do not like. You are also using the strawman argument about companies, this is not about companies. Companies are deleted if they are self promotion or paid promotion. Companies are also registered that may never exist, they are just shell companies. People actually exist and are referenced in "serious" and "publicly available" media. --RAN (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop being rude claiming that I'm nominating something because "I don't like it". The example with companies is not strawman it is a "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity". Now you are assuming that people are more "notable" than companies even though they are referenced in the same (or more if we consider the French government) "serious" and "publicly available" media. Günther Frager (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, you have completely demolished any argument for keeping all entries on every possible company. Yet, we are talking about an entry on a person, not a company, which is what makes it a strawman argument. --RAN (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I don't see the distinction between them in WD:N, could you quote the place where there is different treatment between people and companies in the policy? Günther Frager (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  A directory, whether of companies or of people is not information dense, it gives just two data points, not enough for a full entry. This entry up for deletion is information dense, not just a name and a telephone number. I think most people would agree that an entry for any human where we only have a name and telephone number or only a company name and a street address would be deleted. --RAN (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I asked for the policy, not for your opinions or conjetures. Günther Frager (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep Wikidata is for collecting databases, this person has links to databases (which are not social media) so I'm inclined to think they pass WD notability.StarTrekker (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

•  Keep Multiple sitelinks. --RAN (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is no external-id, about almost everyone one can find a few sources on the Internet, but those not mean an item should be created. Citing #2 criterion here is only possible with a very inclusionist interpretation of that point, which I am opposed to. Wostr (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

   Comment Insufficient justification, failing to show why the sources are not "serious and publicly available references" (2nd citerion). Wikidata isn't Wikipedia. Someone can have 5 identifiers: profile x, instragram profile, facebook profile etc. - and that doesn't make the item "notable". If there are no external identifiers, statements like described by source (P1343) or described at URL (P973) are sufficient.

  I don't know why I have to explain this to an admin of another wiki project, but okay, let's go.

  Sources used in this item:

  1. https://polskiemiesiace.ipn.gov.pl/mie/form/r93778,Skowronski-Rudolf-Jacek.html - website-project made by Institute of National Remembrance (Q705173) - Polish government-affiliated research institute with lustration prerogatives and prosecution powers.
  2. https://i.pl/rudolf-skowronski-najdrozszy-polski-zaginiony/ar/724953 - leading polish news portal from Polska Press (Q11822473), former "Polska The Times" (author of this article is notable journalist https://oko.press/autor/witoldglowacki).
  3. https://polskieradio24.pl/artykul/2195076,rudolf-skowronski-to-od-lat-poszukiwany-polski-oligarcha - from Polskie Radio 24 (Q21523269), polish public radio station.
  4. https://rejestr.io/osoby/1349163/rudolf-skowronski - a reliable service that presents data from the state and public National Court Register (Q16569346).
  5. https://centrumedu.ipn.gov.pl/ph/archiwum-1/2019/7345,Tajemnice-bezpieki-23-stycznia.html - also IPN - see first source.
  6. https://www.policja.pl/pol/aktualnosci/3352,Rudolf-Skowronski-na-policyjnej-top-liscie.html - official web page of Policja (Q622532).

  There is no doubt that the above sources are publicly available and serious.

  Please do not make requests like this in the future, but read rules and other requests (even if some of them are wrong) first. 178.37.233.37 21:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I know WD notability guidelines and this item does not meet these criteria. That's all from me. Wostr (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  No one cares that you think something about a topic until you justify it. You don't justify it, which is incompatible with the dignity of a project administrator. 87.205.166.75 14:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Before starting deletion request like this, please read first WD:N. 178.37.233.37 10:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep The item's sources suggest that he is notable: "Rudolf Skowroński has been a wanted Polish oligarch for years.", eg https://polskieradio24.pl/artykul/2195076,rudolf-skowronski-to-od-lat-poszukiwany-polski-oligarcha and https://polskiemiesiace.ipn.gov.pl/mie/form/r93778,Skowronski-Rudolf-Jacek.html Piecesofuk (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Being a wanted criminal does not automatically make someone notable. About a large part of society "something" can be found on the Internet, but it does not automatically make a person notable. As here, we only have a few links and nothing more, not an article in the Wikimedia project, not even a reference to any database/website for which we have a property. The existence of a few links in the item does not exhaust #2 of the guidelines in my opinion. Wostr (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep - apart from above, he is mentioned in multiple books (Google Books quick search) and other sources:

Gang, Artur Górski · 2021

... Rudolf Skowroński, a well-known businessman, owner of a company that has houses in Mikołajki. In 2002, Bogdan G. was his employee. Now the businessman is wanted on an arrest warrant. »Klepacki wanted to collect protection money in Mikołajki ...

Provocation - dictators, politicians, agents

By Piotr Gajdziński · 2002

was included in the (in)famous politician's Andrzej Lepper's list, here:

Andrzej Lepper · 2002 · ‎No preview

Mentioned in Polish Wikipedia as a side character (e.g. here: 18 times in one article only)

Mentioned at least once in the English Wikipedia.

Is the sole topic of the discussions organized by the governmental institutions.. . Zezen (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Keep Could possibly even pass Wikipedia GNG.StarTrekker (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

•  Keep Category no longer deleted on Commons--Trade (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep populated Commons category, multiple external identifiers, and the alias (which no other items appear to use) has entries in Wiktionary and the OED Jamie7687 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

•  Comment Apparently for some reason @Trade: added a category to commons that isn't for "bottom cleavage" to begin with. I've reverted said edit. I'll also point out that "bottom cleavage" is misnomer anyway. Per Google cleavage is "the hollow between a woman's breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment." That inherently doesn't apply to the bottom of the breasts. File:Body painting - outline-offset.jpg isn't an image of cleavage. Hence why I reverted @Trade:'s edit BTW. Regardless, maybe there could be an item for "Underboobs" instead. Someone should create one instead of trying to repurpose this one when that's not what it was originally for. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

When the item was created in 2021 it referred to Jan Baliński b. 1924.

Today, only GND ID and CERL ID, - the CERL record is based on the GND record -, did not belong to Jan Baliński b. 1924. BPLY (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Delete per Help:Conflation of two people. Thank you for your work on these items. William Graham (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

An essay by an absent user. BPLY (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The history is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20240912204857/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&action=history

1. 2021-04-26 item was created, first version: http://web.archive.org/web/20240912205031/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&oldid=1409113020
2. 2022-01-17 the false GND ID added
3. 2023‎-08-02 the false CERL ID added
4. 2024‎-03-26 GND ID and CERL ID removed
5. 2024‎-03-30 CERL ID re-added by a user later blocked
6. 2024-09-12 17:30 version before split and conversion to conflation-item: http://web.archive.org/web/20240912205342/https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q106627377&oldid=2247189178

So, can any blocked user add a wrong ID, and if it stays some weeks, the item will be deleted? @Kolja21, William Graham: On an item about human A, how long has an ID of human B to exist, for the item to be split and deleted? BPLY (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BPLY: See above: "If the information about the second person was added just recently (e.g. through a merger of items this week), it's usually best to revert this to remove the information" (Help:Conflation of two people). Q106627377 is conflated since January 2022. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help:Conflation of two people is just a text started by one user. The text in the first section "Identify" consists of two sentences:

1. "An item conflates two people when it includes one or more elements that come from each, such as dates of birth and death of one and the achievements of another."
2. "This is different from an item that merely includes a fact about another person."

which are almost the same as in the version of the end of day one of that page 2018-03-13 [4]

1. "An item conflates two people when it includes several elements that come from each, notably the dates of one and the achievements or function of another."
2. "This is different from an item that merely includes a fact about another person."

The sentences don't make sense. What are "elements"? What does "several elements that come from each" mean? Does a single such element that comes "from each exist"? What about sentence 2, and "merely includes a fact about another person" - is the CERL ID such a fact? BPLY (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was not a conflation, just an item with two incorrect identifiers (one of which was already connected to the correct ones in VIAF, so may have been correct originally) that could be merged with Q130286850. The other item is Q106627379, which was created around the same time as this item and not the result of splitting it. Peter James (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@CKudella: Thanks for comment on Talk:Q126326179. Can you take a look on this deletion discussion? --Kolja21 (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

DEIDetected (Q126365310): website that lists video games involving DEI consulting companies: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

•  Keep Notable. References are provided. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  described at URL is for reliable sources. Those don't look reliable. Moreover, searching for two of the three on Wikipedia for any discussions or use immediately points at their attempted use in the Sweet Baby article, with the WP editors also describing them as unreliable. Example 1, Example 2. IXBT looks more serious, but then the article author is described as "an AI covering the gaming industry"? Daisy Blue (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All right, first of all, this is not Wikipedia. Please avoid citing various policies and random talk pages of other users from Wikipedia. Wikidata is an independent (completely different) project, it does not depend on Wikipedia (nor should it) and there are no lists of recommended/unrecommended sources. It also does not evaluate sources based on the authors of articles, and certainly not on the personal opinion of enwiki editors. When you are providing references on Wikidata, you are using common sense, not policies from the English Wikipedia. Even in cases where (according to your claim) the sources are unreliable, it can be very useful to know which source was used for a particular assertion. The fact that I have provided references describing the subject here is already good thing. As for your complaint about the third source (iXBT), it is more than reliable, it is also used as a separate property. You made a request for deletion due to lack of references, now they have been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and WD:N criteria are met, so your complaints are now completely unjustified.

Regarding described at URL (P973). This property, if anything, is used for available sources that describe an subject. If you don't like described at URL so much, I can replace it with the other one exact match (P2888) and it won't make a difference. I can also not only replace these sources with another property, but also add them as references for some statements, which has already been done.

By the way, I see that you've started reverting my quite valid edits en masse. I see this as an attempt to remove a source you disagree with (same applies for Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722) created by @Trade). For my part, I find it quite useful, since this database has information on DEI consulting companies that have contributed to a particular game. For Wikidata, this database is useful for structured data because it also provides information on the developers and publishers for a particular game. What's wrong with it I don't understand. It's a video game database like the others and I think it has the right to be used as a source. Removing valid statements and reverting edits just because a given source is not reliable for enwiki seems completely unreasonable to me, and I'm completely perplexed, since Wikidata is a separate project from Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you revert your edits.

I also noticed that you are already removing reliable sources such as USgamer for no reason, see 1 and 2. Why do you do that? What's wrong with that source? Why do you think you have the right to remove valid sources that were added by other users who spent their own precious time searching for and adding them? I honestly don't understand what's going on here. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources.

On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links) and point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to). Point 2 asks that there are "serious and publicly available references", which is what I addressed. You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment of The Shortcut being a Slack blog (click on the article author) or the point on Retro-Replay being a "[blog] with no reputation", which is apparent even from a quick look at the Retro-Replay Instagram page with "I love retro gaming and so should you." as the bio (emphasis mine). On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source. It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources.

On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do. Daisy Blue (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

> The language you are using to define described at URL as being merely for "available sources" is not in line with its actual Wikidata definition that asks for reliable sources.

I'm sorry, what kind of "definition" are you talking about? Why are you even looking at a property discussion pages with outdated descriptions? On the property itself, the description says "item is described at the following URL". If anything, the outdated description should be read all the way to the end. The outdated description This is to be used to provide links to reliable external resources that are not the item's official website, when no relevant "authority control" property exists. The sources I provided are not the item's official website and no properties (separate for news) exist for them on Wikidata. Meanwhile the current description, which is more or less available in many languages, is item is described at the following URL. Then what is the problem and what is this complaint against me? You asked for references describing the subject and I provided them as soon as I could. The subject is described by these independent references, that is, those references that are not directly or indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes.

Once again, described at URL property is used for any independent sources that can describe the subject. Your complaints about the use of this property are absolutely unjustified and I remind you once again that this is not enwiki. There are no such strict requirements for sources (like reliable/unreliable sources) as you might think. The requirement of serious sources is usually applied to human-related items, which is completely reasonable. When you provide sources, you are guided by common sense, not enwiki policy. We are on Wikidata, it is a completely different project, it is independent and has its own rules. Once again: you submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have been given (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by these independent sources and the WD:N criteria have been met, so your complaint is now completely unreasonable.

> On Notability, which is the only thing to consider in the context of this talk page, DEIDetected undoubtedly fails to meet point 1 (there are no wiki links)

Please re-read WD:N carefully. It's even noted in bold. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below. One of the three does not mean that criterion 1 is needed here, it means that (at least) either 1, 2 or 3 are needed, not all three.

In case you didn't know, an item can exist safely without criterion #1. Here's a good example. This item has a link to ruwiki, where the article is now set for deletion for obvious reasons, even if it will be eventually deleted, it does not mean that the item will be deleted over here, because it meets criterion #3, so your complaint is again not valid.

> point 3 (no structural need, as its not used or linked to).

Now meets criterion #3 and #1 as well.

> You could dismiss the points made by the Wikipedia editors just because they're on Wikipedia, but I didn't see a lot of value in repeating their valid assessment...

You contradict yourself. You say that we can dismiss the points of Wikipedia editors, but at the same time you are again talking about their personal supposedly reasonable assessment of the sources cited here... And once again, let me also remind you that we do not evaluate sources here according to the authors of the article (as it is on Wikipedia). Wikidata editors don't review the authors of articles, they simply take and use common sense to add independent available sources describing a subject, period. Everything else noted should be of little interest to the person who provides the source.

And by the way, since you are so fixated on the article authors and you are considering the sources from Wikipedia's perspective, well, let me point something out. The author of this article turned out to be a serious person who has already been involved in the gaming industry. He's both a former editor of TechRadar (since you like to cite enwiki policies so often, it's if anything, a reliable source there...) and previously worked at Nintendo of Europe during the launch of the Nintendo Switch. What other complaints are you going to have? You're still going to say it's not reliable despite that, right? Even if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised, but in any case I'll remind you again that Wikidata doesn't evaluate references by article authors, so it doesn't make much of a difference.

> On IXBT, you're not really addressing the issue of AI news being unreliable by referring to the fact that Wikidata uses the site for purposes other than it being a reliable / serious source.

You can have all the complaints you want about the article authors (who are not Wikidata's reference point when considering sources), but the fact that it's a more than reliable source doesn't change that.

> It's the same kind of logical fallacy as saying that because Wikidata has properties that link to other wikis, the information from those wikis is a reliable / serious source. That being unacceptable is specifically addressed by Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources.

I don't understand what you mean by "properties"? Properties if anything can't have links to other wikis, it's just not possible and no, iXBT is not a wiki site, it's a reliable source. The help page you cited says something completely different. It says that it is considered unacceptable to add references that are solely derived from various Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, which is exactly the one you often mention. Here's a specific example. In short: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikidata, and all such references should be preferably replaced by other sources not related to Wikimedia projects.

> On the rest, I'd suggest moving your comment on the described at URL reverting to the Project chat page and your comment on USGamer to the Dustborn talk page (which contains my explanation), as those have no relation to whether a page is notable. I will respond via those if you do.

No, your unreasonable reverts here are directly related, as you are attempting to remove a quite useful database that you do not agree with for your own personal reasons and I demand a clarification. I spent my own precious time searching for and adding references and you then reverted/deleted them all at once just because you don't agree with them. Wikidata doesn't work like that, we consider any source that may be useful, including for structural purposes, and you have completely ignored this fact. I will ask you a second time, again politely, to revert your edits, as disagreement is not a valid reason to remove sources from Wikidata. I also disagree with a lot of things, but I would never allow myself like you to delete/revert references perfectly well knowing that Wikidata often lacks them.

The same goes for the USgamer issue. I don't know what your plans are here, who knows maybe you want to remove the USgamer item too, how should I be able to understand? That's why I'm asking why you removed this trusted source.

> Also, bigbaddice.pl, the fourth source you added after my reply has every characteristic of a group blog, which would make it self-published and not reliable.

That's your personal opinion. You are considering sources in terms of Wikipedia, not Wikidata, I don't know how else to explain that. And by the way the help page you cited both in this reply and the others above is just informational, not Wikidata policy. It also sometimes mentions the English Wikipedia as a reference, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata.

P.S. I see that you have started to literally follow my crosswiki activity to bother me there too, please stop this kind of behavior. I warn you that I will not tolerate such blatant behavior. I think it is absolutely not normal that first my edits are reverted only because you do not agree with the source (disagreement is not in any case is not a valid reason for removing sources), then also follow me crosswiki and accuse me. I did nothing to you and I want to be left alone! You don't let me work on Wikidata in peace and accuse me of everything. I don't understand what you want from me and you're directly preventing my further activity. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:Verifiability is linked from Template:Policies and Guidelines, as well as Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources suggesting its use for identifying reliable sources. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the exact reason why WD:V is in the mentioned pages, but it's just an informational page and certainly not a Wikidata policy, unlike WD:N. WD:V mentions English Wikipedia (unreliable source for Wikidata) as a reference point for sources, which, as correctly pointed out, should not be considered normative in Wikidata. All Wikidata policies and guidelines are marked with specific templates.

By the way, I see that for all these days that I was away, you have not even bothered to answer my questions and comment on everything that I have noted... You just responded about one comment that essentially has nothing to do with deletion at all and that's it? I see that you either don't care or you have nothing more to add. In that case I will probably distance myself from this discussion as well, I have nothing more to do here. Everything you asked me I answered, I also commented and even more, I noted a considerable amount of things, but there were almost no answers to my questions... Here I see only going in circles and I am not obliged and I am not going to answer you anymore. I have done my part and will wait for the outcome of the deletion request.

I'll remind you again what we are discussing here. You submitted a request for deletion because there were no references, now they have long been provided (one of which is more than reliable), the subject is described by independent references and the WD:N criteria are met, your complaints against me now are completely unfounded, as are your complaints against the sources, since there are no such strict requirements for them as you might think. The fact that you personally disagree with them is not my problem, nor is it Wikidata's problem. Disagreement is in no way a valid reason to remove either the item or the sources. It is completely unacceptable that you are trying to remove anything related to this database in any way.

In summary: the subject is described by independent sources, i.e. those sources that are not directly/indirectly related to the creator of the website? Yes. Are the WD:N criteria met? Yes, and the item meets criteria #1, #2, and #3, so there is no reason to delete it anymore, period. You should not have any further complaints here, I have done my job and should not discuss anything with you here, so please respect my precious time and work, and please do not bother me on this topic anymore. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Keep regardles of the question of whether or not listing the links with described at URL (P973) is a good idea, the entity gets discussed by multiple sources that are external to the source. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sweet Baby Inc detected (Q124830722): controversial Steam curator: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

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

Spam/promotional Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

 Keep (WD:N #3) as it's currently necessary for worker (Q327055) and amateur (Q455595) and useful for fictional person with an activity (Q129586487); I don't know if the uses can be replaced with another item. Peter James (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sofus Aksel Hogh Pihl (Q130262989): (1896-1990): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

•  Keep Per Wikidata:Notability: A structural need as a member of the Pihl family. Sophus Theodor Pihl has an entry in Wikipedia. If someone is going to expand his biography they are going to want to know about his family. We have over 1,000,000 data points waiting for bots to transfer the references from the Identifiers. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peter Lauritz Gotlieb Pihl (Q130266015): (1871-1936): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

•  Keep Per Wikidata:Notability: A structural need as a member of the Pihl family. Sophus Theodor Pihl has an entry in Wikipedia. If someone is going to expand his biography they are going to want to know about his family. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Petra Sigvarda Nilsen (Q130263047): (1873-1950) wife of Peter Pihl: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

•  Keep A structural need as a member of the Pihl family. Sophus Theodor Pihl has an entry in Wikipedia. If someone is going to expand his biography they are going to want to know about his family. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

• Keep, meets WD:N, since it has serious sources SBN author ID=LIAV097588, Pontifical University of Salamanca ID=543548 Eduard Ungern (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

The documentation that served as a reference for the creation of these 273 monument items is available at this link. However, we have discovered that this documentation has been revised and a new resolution has been published, as can be seen at this link. The 273 items created have errors that would be difficult to identify, so the best course of action would be to delete them and create new items based on the new resolution. LBelo (WMB) (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Errors" is vague, it seems to be an updated list and many of the items in the original list are missing (one of them, Q130296435, is used as the example in the deletion request). If the old version was valid, the items should not be deleted, as it would be possible to add end time (P582) as a qualifier to the heritage designation (P1435) of anything not in the new list. Another option is to create new items and merge any duplicates. Peter James (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LBelo (WMB): Could you comment on this, please? --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Peter James, thank you for your comment! I will identify the monuments with errors and correct them. LBelo (WMB) (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

list of members of the second Knesset (Q3498502): Wikimedia list article: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I merged with Q6260264 --Golda Is In The House (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Golda Is In The House: I undid the edits because list article items and ordinary items should be kept separate. Interwiki linking between the two can be enabled by adding sitelinks to redirects. Thanks. Samoasambia ✎ 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

list of members of the first Knesset (Q2978212): Wikimedia list article: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I merged with Q14075086 --Golda Is In The House (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I undid the edits for the most part because list article items and ordinary items should be kept separate. Interwiki linking between the two can be enabled by adding sitelinks to redirects. Samoasambia ✎ 22:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anton Tyshchenko (Q130322621): Designer and producer of internet projects: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears non-notable and promotional Jamie7687 (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of both requested below. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Forough Amjadi (Q125968926): Iranian actress: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable --HeminKurdistan (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply