Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Requests for deletions

Items that do not meet Wikidata's notability policy can be deleted. Please nominate items for deletions on this page under the "Requests" section below. If it is obvious vandalism, just add the page here (gadget available), or ping an administrator to delete it. Contact can also be made with an administrator in #wikidata^connect.

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

Please use Wikidata:Properties for deletion if you want to nominate a property for deletion.

Duplicate items should be merged, not deleted: see Help:Merge.

Do not blank items in anticipation of deletion. In particular, do not remove sitelinks, even if you have requested the deletion of the page in the sitelink's target wiki or if you think that sitelinks of this type should not have Wikidata items.

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion and either contact the deleting admin or use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard instead.

More information

Add a new request

Translate this header box!

On this page, old requests are archived, if they are marked with {{Deleted}}. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/09/15.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~130 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}

None at the moment

if this list is out of date.

Requests

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

Q122916541

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Notable. Searching Google for "Big Interview" you'll find it's used by a number of US Universities and also Coursera https://www.coursera.org/biginterview Piecesofuk (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That a business or university uses a piece of software or webapp doesn't make it notable. The Coursera page looks like two courses on their platform. Not sure that any of that is a reliable source to establish notibility. -- William Graham (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Passes Wikidata notability #2 "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references."

Other references:

https://careers.northeastern.edu/article/big-interview/

https://careerservices.upenn.edu/resources/big-interview/

https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/business/2017/05/16/work-wanted-big-interview-great-practice-tool/15755120007/

https://career.ucsb.edu/digital-resources-toolkit/big-interview

https://careers.usc.edu/resources/big-interview/

https://careers.umbc.edu/tools/big-interview/ Piecesofuk (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

These read pretty much like written by the company, I think. Thus not serious, in my opinion. --Dorades (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the review in the Florida Times-Union (Q3520924) was written by the company. Anyway, they all show that the platform exists and is widely used and therefore enough to pass Wikidata notability. Piecesofuk (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Florida Times Union link seems to be a pretty uncritical listing of product features from a person in that industry. I'm not sure it's especially serious. -- William Graham (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

... they all show that the platform exists and is widely used and therefore enough to pass Wikidata notability. Where do you find this in WD:N? --Dorades (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata notability #2 "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." Piecesofuk (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This very paragraph says that "serious and publicly available references" are needed to desribe such an entity. So just existing and being used is not enough. --Dorades (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've given plenty of serious and publicly available references above. Here's some more

https://www.vogue.com/article/job-interview-tips-dos-donts-advice

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/mastering-the-online-job-interview/article19626191/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/09/14/the-top-75-websites-for-your-career/ Piecesofuk (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1 and 2: Not about the company, just quoting the founder. 3: A forbes list article of 75 items. None of them are serious sources about Big Interview. -- William Graham (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

They all describe what the company is, they're all mainstream sources. I really don't understand what your definition of "serious" is then. Since Pamela Skillings (Q122923841) is notable and she co-founded the company then it also passes N3: "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." Piecesofuk (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue criteria 3 for structural need. But in regards to what is serious source for a business, I would want to see either academic/scholarly works or journalistic coverage.

• I would not accept things that are published by the item's subject or their employees. I.e. blogs and social media
• Paid content, press releases, and routine financial reporting in the same category as self published works and aren't sufficiently journalism
• Business directories and telephone directories aren't especially serious.
• Similarly having search results (on Google, Bing, etc) is probably not enough.
• For journalistic works, I think there should be some kind of reporting and not simple quoting of the business's marketing materials or attributing a quoted person by identifying their employer. Being mentioned in passing is probably not sufficient serious coverage of the subject. If the article is entirely about the business, I usually want to see some investigation or confirming of facts from sources that are not the subject or their employees. Journalism probably should include a manner of selectivity or editorial, i.e. an large or indiscriminate list of things is probably not sufficient (list article).

This is just my point of view and there have been other discussions in the past where the community has discussed what serious means and declined to try to create some kind of exhaustive list. A serious source can vary due to the nature of the item. See Wikidata talk:Notability.

Edit to add User:Emu/Notability#“serious_and_publicly_available_references” I think this user page, while not policy also has some links to how the community has considered things in the past.

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

Thank you for your detailed response. I've always treated Wikidata's notability far looser than Wikipedia hence I would regard a source citing an entity's existence, as in for example the .edu sites and the Vogue etc. articles, as enough for Wikidata notability. But ultimately it's up to the Administrators what to keep and delete and hopefully they'll perhaps clarify in more detail what notability and serious references mean. Piecesofuk (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, I think a lot of Wikidata editors myself included, are sensitive to Wikidata accumulating tons of items on entrepreneurs and businesses (digital startups especially) that feel nearly entirely promotional. Businesses and their advertising agencies/SEO people create items with the hopes that Google will import those items into Google Knowledge Graph. Being in Google Knowledge Graph usually leads to an info box on Google Search results and they hope having one will increase their visibility to customers/investors. So when dealing with those kinds of items there can be an elevated level of skepticism regarding notability. -- William Graham (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well said, and the companies disappear in a year, and all that is left behind are these "pay to play" promotional interviews. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Q119702477

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A couple of other websites mention it https://bougetonq.com/reussir-etudes-blog-aide-etudiants/ and 100K+ followers on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rmetudes/ Exilexi (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Q7302845

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Q124395843

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Per IMDb he has composed music for multiple notable movies, so probably notable. EPIC (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request regarding Rumblesushi

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

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

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

Q19042715

Clever Gretel (Q19042715): English translation of Grimm fairy tale: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, link removed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• According to https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3091/clever-gretel/ the source is: "Edwardes, M., Taylor, E., trans. (1905). Grimm's Fairy Tales. New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co.". Peter James (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, in fact the identical text with some minor differences in typography appears in more editions. But I can rework the item to refer to this particular edition. So I am witdrawing the deletion proposal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  After some time working on this, considerable doubts have arisen. Based on the above mentioned page https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3091/clever-gretel/ I created the Q124425926, but then I found out that this edition cannot be found in any public catalogue, and so now I have doubts whether it really exists or whether the page made some mistake about the alleged edition. Because of the lack of information about this edition, now I suggest to delete both Q19042715 and Q124425926 as well, apologizing for being too hasty with creation of the latter one. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request regarding Kasper Nordkvist

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

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

Fonts items are notable. 178.37.205.142 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

says who? Amir (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Q124666348

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Author of Le cinéma à Aimargues (Q124666307), but then all these were created by IP and have no sources. Fralambert (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Q108176371

Francesco Filippini - Barche sulla spiaggia

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

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

Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. For some reason I did not see a notification.

This item was deleted for the same reason given above by Horcrux, but restored on request by @Jarekt in Topic:Xz183i74x04zx7bh. Bovlb (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Keep The item is a place for storing metadata for File:Francesco Filippini - Barche sulla spiaggia (1892-93).jpg painting which was uploaded by User:Иван Богданов and used on bunch of Wikipedias, like for example in ca:Obra artística de Francesco Filippini. It was sold on auction in 2013, so there is at least one reliable source. The auction lists exhibitions where it was shown. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason we delete items created by the Lake Como LTA is that they blend truth and fiction and it's therefore impossible to tell whether the created items are real or hoaxes. If an established user is willing to take on responsibility for (the reality of) an item, I'm happy to undelete.

As discussed at the topic linked above, it appears that there are ways Commons users use Wikidata items that are not readily apparent when we delete items. This is something we ought to fix. Bovlb (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Q108184575

Carlo Bazzi, Paesaggio

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

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

Ping @Bovlb who deleted it and recreated it. Fralambert (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response. For some reason I did not see a notification.

This item was deleted for the same reason given above by Horcrux, but restored on request by @Jarekt in Topic:Xz183i74x04zx7bh. Bovlb (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

My role is maintenance of artwork metadata on Commons/Wikidata, the item was deleted leaving broken links from File:Carlo Bazzi, Paesaggio.jpg on Commons. The item was uploaded by User:Xalamea89, who also provided metadata, unfortunately without sources. I do not have art catalogs for Carlo Bazzi, so I can not easily verify the metadata. The painting seems to exist, and I found this source or this one, which might or might not be "reliable" enough. If the item gets deleted please move all the metadata which might be missing to Commons and remove link to the item. --Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Q123689937

region of Western Sahara (Q123689937): geographic region: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep it's both a geographic region of Western Sahara (this is a fact) and a claimed "administrative entity" that covers what is claimed and occupied by Morocco as well as the liberated territories that are under the control of another state. The OP is aware that this has been discussed at length on the admin's board, so this nomination makes no sense. I will ping Koavf who is familiar with the mentioned discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning to keep as there is no reason why this has to be regions of Morocco's occupation in Western Sahara, but regions of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Western Sahara. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf In which database or administrative system is this concept used or defined? If it's not formally defined in such a system, then it's not an administrative territorial entity (Q56061). Note the description: territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government, as well as the property part of (P361) => hierarchy of administrative territorial entities (Q4057633). You could argue for "geographic region of Western Sahara", but it's pointless to have this item only for two entities, when the same idea can be captured by simply using location properties and such. Furthermore, the two aformentioned regions are only defined with their names and borders within the Moroccan administrative system. Is SADR officially dividing Western Sahara in the exact same way with the same borders and names? Ideophagous (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

They are not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no point in repeating what was discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete given the absence of foundational text (P457), ISO 3166-2 code (P300) (confirming the existence of administrative territorial entities under this item) and sources. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary). Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseam, including on the admin's board (in a discussion that was started by you, in case you've forgotten).M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  As a matter of reminder, this item has been created out of thin air amid the discussion you are referring too (in case you've forgotten your work). Reda benkhadra (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  The item in question is valid and has been mentioned in that discussion (involving multiple admins). In other words, this rfd is an abuse of process. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete Not a recognized "administrative territorial entity". There is no government administration. --RAN (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): There is no government administration over the "fictitious administrative area" that covers a claimed/illegally occupied area as well as an area that is governed by another state (a member of the African Union who claims the whole of the territory). M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Wikidata:Notability "2 It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references. Herstamp (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Herstamp: The item is unreferenced. So what "serious and publicly available references" are you talking about exactly? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)'

@Herstamp: I agree. Here are the sources: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro. There are others, but these are more than enough. M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete The item is unreferenced and it's not even clear the place exists to begin with. So I don't really see why there should be an entry for it, unless someone can find valid references. Then I'd probably lean toward it being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Adamant1: what exactly constitute a valid source and where should it be added? This one for instance mentions a "region in occupied Western Sahara". Also, both Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro are geographic and political regions of Western Sahara that are claimed and partially liberated by the Polisario (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: What that article specifically references is "the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region in occupied Western Sahara", not "a region" in occupied Western Sahara." I'm sure you get the difference. This entry isn't for Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab. What is for is an undefined, unnamed "region" of Western Sahara. Everywhere has "regions" though. So I'm sure you can find any number of articles discussing "regions" of any location on earth. That's not really the point or what I was referring to when I said there wasn't any references. Regardless, you can't just create a vague entry for every undefined region in the world because some places have regions. Be my guest and create one for the Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab region or whatever though. But "region of Western Sahara" is totally meaningless. It's literally just the Western Sahara. That is the region. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. You didn't comment on the other reliable sources about the two geographic and political regions of Western Sahara, namely, Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

you can also argue that country, city, etc,. are meaningless since they are everywhere. The difference is that those things are officially recognized as being political boundaries. Whereas "region" is just a colloquial term for any semi-large area of land. You could switch it for area, division, or any other similar terms though and it would make absolutely no difference what-so-ever. It would be stupid to argue there should be a separate, unique entry for "the division of Mexico", "region of Mexico", "area of Mexico" or whatever arbitrary slang word for a country you want use just because countries exist and it happens to be one though. That's not an argument. "An entry for region of Mexico makes total sense because cities are everywhere!" Right, right. Real solid argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The valid sources have been been provided for the two regions of Western Sahara (Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro). There is nothing "colloquial" about them as they are both mentioned in the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

And like I already pointed out and your ignoring this is an entry for "region of Western Sahara", not "region of Saguia el-Hamra" or "region of Río de Oro." The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." Just because there's regions in the United States doesn't mean there's a "region of the United States." I'm sure you get the difference. Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " they actually talk about a "region of Western Sahara": see Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.

"Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it" this is where we part ways as I have no time for those who cast aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm just calling a spade a spade. Its pretty clear your intentionally misrepresenting the sources. Your just dodging out now because your clearly not going to just admit they don't say there's a "region of Western Sahara" like your falsely claiming. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.

Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's never the dishonesty that's the issue. Pointing it out though, now that's the real problem. What did you say a couple of messages ago? "What a surprise (the same editors looking to get rid of the bothersome facts by any means necessary)" and I'm the one casting aspersions simply for pointing out that your clearly misconstruing the sources. Right, right. Hey, if you find that so insulting, maybe try being honest next time or at least don't drag other users through the dirt and then act like your the victim when someone gives you the lightest pushback about something. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.

Casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing: the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"Saguia el-Hamra, northern geographic region of Western Sahara." That's not saying "Western Sahara is a region", it's saying "Saguia el-Hamra is a northern geographic region of Western Sahara." Just like if I were to say "New York is a state of the United States" I'm saying the United States is state. The second source is saying the exact same thing. I think you either just don't understand English grammar or don't care though. Either way, competence is required and this is one of those situations where you probably shouldn't have an opinion if you don't even understand the basics of the language. Especially if you going to be this argumentative about it. Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree, the sources aren't saying what you think they are. Look this is super simple, the Midwest is a region of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States is a region though. It's not that difficult. It's literally just how basic English works. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.

Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"".

Like I said, casting aspersions and doubling down on them won't change a thing as the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find someone saying your reading a source wrong so insulting. It's pretty clear your opinion and need to be correct no matter what is the only thing that matters here. I don't really have anything else to day about it outside of that since you clearly lack a basic willingness to listen to other people's opinions or have an actual conversation about it, but I do wonder why you even care to begin with. It's a weird thing to have such a bad attitude about. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if there's an entry for the "region of Western Sahara." You clearly just have to be right and get your way about it regardless though. It's just such a ridiculous way to act about something. But I'll end it there. Have fun sticking your fingers in your ears. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"The sources don't talk about a "region of Western Sahara" they talk about "regions in Western Sahara." " You are wrong. Here are the sources that show the use of of instead of in as you falsely claimed: Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro.

Seriously, take my word for it as a native English speaker with a high level degree says the editor who wrote "Your just choosing to be disingenuous about it"" and "your reading a source wrong".

"I'm sorry" you should be for casting aspersions and doubling down on them. In any case, the diffs and the the sources don't lie. M.Bitton (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Q120229700

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

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

This individual is one of the named contributors to Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change (Q60451191), though as there the author is given as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Q171183) I'm not sure how to add the individual authors. I'll ask at Wikidata:WikiProject Climate Change how this should be done. Dsp13 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dsp13

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Rajeeb ^(talk!) 15:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC) John Samuel (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Pauljmackay (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Bukky658 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Dsp13 (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) 168.5.41.197 17:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Lupe (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Guettarda (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Samoasambia ✎ 09:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Climate Change Is there a solution? Mbch331 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dsp13: You must have linked the wrong report. Yukata is named in AR5 WGII (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) which doesn't seem to have Wikidata item yet, not in AR5 WGIII. Individual editors can be added with editor (P98) while IPCC should be publisher (P123). –Samoasambia ✎ 10:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

On page 2, are all those names editors? If so, then he can be added with editor (P98).

Q117840901

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

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

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

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

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2024/01/28#Q124269284

You can read both discussions. One Hundred Years of Solitude (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto.

•  Keep Published author, why are we deleting? --RAN (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I think the main problem is the item is heavely spamed. But then, we could clean it and add filter to protect it. Fralambert (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Don't we want people to complete the data in their entries, so long as correct? --RAN (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• Looks like self promo, not to mention Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto, en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স LTA. Anyway  Delete as User:Fralambert said above "heavely spamed". Even if for some reason we keep it, please clean up the item. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Why do we call a Wikidata entry that is more complete as spammed? Don't we want the information filled in? Has it been shown to be false? Has it been hijacked? --RAN (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep

Speculation and suspicion..... Why? Why complicate things, life by doing these...... I said I took his photo. He is my Brother. We now have no communication due to some legal issues. Our inlaws are fighting with each other and my parents. I am feeling so ashamed that I had to disclose so many private things about my and my brother's life.

My brother is a fighter. He wrote books, got the job he loved, he became a physician, trained outside, worked with various castes and religions of people. In Fought with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. If is is not the hero, notable, i do not know who is.

He survived cancer, he fought, got chemotherapy, bone marrow transplant. He survived. He picked up his book, he vomited, then again picked up text books, kept doing that, cause in his CV line, chemo was running.

He passed the Secondary and Higher secondary school certificate exam, without any coaching, tutour, nothing. He just kept reading. The goal was fixed, to be a Doctor.

He became one. I know he is not credible, because his work is not published in the Guardian, Times. He is not a rich youtuber or ambani. He just saves lives everyday, that's all.

My brother is a cheerful man, he got married, and now he is facing divorce. so, during this time, he thought, let's get busy with something purposeful.

He only wanted to write. He created wikidata entry, he thought its like Facebook or linkedin. He created multiple accounts because he thought it was ISP's problem. That id is gone. And few he opened because of fun.

Yeah, he is now a sock. I am not defending him. But as a human being, after watching all these, anyone wants that the story should be heard. Millions of children who hasCancer will get the strength.

No, we will not talk about that. we will talk about duck, sock, ban, block.

I am ready, harsh words, block, ban..... but truth will always be the truth.

I live on the 4th floor.

My brother is on the 2nd floor.

We have the same router.

I apologize for this tone. He is an introvert, very shy. He will accept anything. He is a positive person. I am sorry that he messed up your site.

P:S: By Court, my parents separated everything between us, with one condition. My inlaws and I must not have any contact with my brother…… and yeah, it's Bangladesh, we value our marriage and society, we even give up our brother to save those.

But he did not. He got separated, Got accepted for MRCP part-1, he lives with my parents, i come and go….. He goes to hospital at 6:00 am, sometimes at 1:00am at night he comes back, sometimes after 1-2 days. We have 0 connection between us.

Except the router and some ids which are now I do not know where. We used to edit,create pages like back 2009-10, my brother became so interested that he went insane. He sat with a dictionary, and tried to find which words has no article.

But he relapsed…..again he fought.

Anyways, I am a trainee in Dhaka Medical College. Yeah, I am also….. But please, do not speculate, suspect. It's so sad…..

Now decide guys, erase him? The bad person he is…..or let people know, you can be anything, you can fight like hell, like this man…..

P:S: My brother is in the hospital right now. He has no idea about these. I know you will prove ip, tools etc….. But yes, he is a fighter. Thats all. History will tell his tale….. Omadacycline (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স/Archive, Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto

 Keep

Published Author

1.A Systematic Review on Childhood Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Overlooked Phenomenon in the Health and Research Sector of Bangladesh.

2.A Systematic Review of Pediatric Dialysis in Asia: Unveiling Demographic Trends, Clinical Representation, and Outcomes.

3. Association of Ventricular Extension and Short Term Outcome in Primary Intracerebral Haemorrhage.

He is pretty famous in Bangladesh. One Hundred Years of Solitude (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Sock of Tanzir Islam Britto, see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto.

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

•  Keep published author. Herstamp (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

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

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

• References: https://www.jurnalekspres.co.id/2023/05/leoni-ayu-pratiwi-sh-calon-milenial.html https://www.potretsumsel.id/2023/05/leoni-ayu-pratiwi-h-arlan-ikut-serahkan.html - Arlan is H Arlan, probably the person mentioned in id:Pemilihan umum Wali Kota Prabumulih 2024. Peter James (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: advertising items created by Jminot92

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)

 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)

Q113556524

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulk deletion request regarding Boowa & Kwala

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

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

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

Q122912457

CoRDI 2023 - Blogpost (Q122912457): A blog post on https://sven-lieber.org: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Q116907159

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q115820956

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

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

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

• I used "natural matter" in mineral (Q7946) to state that mineral is natural matter, which I traced to sources. Thus, I created it to support this statement, which is part of the definition of mineral. If this statement can be made without natural matter (Q115820956), fine; if not, natural matter (Q115820956) is a vital element making that part of the definition possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

  Or possibly inorganic compound (Q190065)? I'm not convinced that the definition of minerals as "natural" or "naturally occurring" is even correct; substances like calcium carbonate are considered minerals whether they're found in a rock formation as chalk, or in your teakettle as limescale. Omphalographer (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Q33082483

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

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

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)

Q125676121

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q125621683

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

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

•  Keep Photographer that we need to track so we know when their images enter the public domain 70 years pma. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

•  Keep per WD:N "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." BergwachtBern (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Q125693411

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

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

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I don't see anything in WD:LP to suggest that this item shouldn't be added to Wikidata. It passes WDN3 and the information contained within it is available in publicly accessible sources and also in the two Polish Wikipedia articles https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friz and https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wersow Piecesofuk (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I would say that the item whould be more probeblatic with LP if the source was from social medias. But it seem to be from newspapers. Fralambert (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete: source doesn't indicate any stand-alone notability, we have no evidence the child itself is okay with having their personal information shared now or in the future. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Q124810095

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

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

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

Bulk deletion request: non-notable web series and episodes

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

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

The mentioned items are not promotional or non-notable. Below are some of reference source associated with this items :

• https://g.co/kgs/QH1mBUj
• https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film240243.html
• https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30146775/
  • https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30146775/episodes/
• https://16may.rudub.online/details.php?id=47282
• http://seasonvar.ru/serial-39771-Mars_Indiya.html
• https://zeflix.online/serials/mars/
• https://thetvdb.com/series/the-mars
  • https://thetvdb.com/series/the-mars/seasons/official/1
• https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/254225-the-mars
• Bing Search Result
  • Bing Search Result - Episodes
• https://wserie.com/shows/the-mars-1
  • https://wserie.com/shows/the-mars-1/S1
• https://tgstat.ru/en/channel/@coldfilm_serials/7961

These are some source associated with these items. If not enough then i can provide more. Loischaa (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

These appear to establish promotional activity, not notability. A larger number of links is not needed; rather, we need links to reliable sources that cannot be easily influenced by a person looking to promote their content. Not all of these links even work; if the TMDB link ever worked, somebody at TMDB may have decided that this doesn't meet their standards, either. Jamie7687 (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok i understand, wait at least a week before deleting. Because production side conformed that the series is closely telecast in CIS countries officially. So may be the OTT source is better according to your conditions.

Here the trailer link, if the official YouTube channel is consider as notable :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6xovLGrz-c Loischaa (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Having an "official" YouTube channel absolutely does not establish notability, nor do vague claims from "production side" — we need reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Loischaa You should proably read User:Bovlb/How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted. Fralambert (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I have created an antispam report at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#The_Rashid_Khan/TRK_Studios/The_Mars/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Q125901596

The Mars Season 1 (Q125901596): season of television series: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

On hold This item is linked from 8 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(which are nominated in a bulk request above) Jamie7687 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

wait before deleting any item, i will provide referencing source for there items shortly. Loischaa (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are links of Wikipedia articles in different language, of item The Mars (Q125447540) which is parent item of The Mars Season 1 (Q125901596) :

• Basque Wikipedia Article
• France Wikipedia Article
• Hindi Wikipedia Article
• Punjabi Wikipedia Article
• Urdu Wikipedia Article

Wikipedia article for the nominated items may be created if any editor want to create. Loischaa (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Note for others: all of these articles were created by Amirdelv (talk • contribs • logs), an account blocked indefinitely on enwiki and simplewiki in relation to w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created an antispam report at meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#The_Rashid_Khan/TRK_Studios/The_Mars/Itrk70. Jamie7687 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

what does it mean? Loischaa (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Q125118469

William Francis Norton (Q125118469): (1857-1939): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

This request also includes:

William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir (Q125118675): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Agnes Gertrude Norton (Q125118971): (1881-1969): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Gerard Francis Norton (Q125943489): (1902-1986): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

William Norton (Q125973531): (1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Margaret Feeney (Q125973633): (1812-1891) wife of William Naughton: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

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

•  Keep As creator, this appears to be part of a harassment/punishment/revenge campaign against me over this edit. It is being performed in tandem with nominating hundreds of uploads at Commons. Its a very clever form of harassment, you can nominate an entire category in a few seconds and the uploader will spend months defending the images. See: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). It is an abuse of power by someone with admin rights, they don't have the temperament for the role, a single edit disagreement has turned into a long term campaign of harassment and revenge for disagreeing with them. By adding "I think all of RAN's creations should be carefully reviewed" they are trying to recruit others to harass me. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." --RAN (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to get tired of you playing the victim role when it's been you who has been playing with the rules. More over, you accuse me of starting a harassment campaign only because you've been caught misusing Wikidata and Commons? How can holding you accountable be anywhere near harassing? You have a problem by failing to respond serious questions and issues. Now, on the Commons, you claim again I started a harassment campaign "now" when this was started nearly two days ago. I would like to get an apology from you for all these personal attacks but I doubt I will get them. Whatever, I am not participating anymore in this discussion, neither on Commons. You should stop the drama and start to work collaboratively without attacking others. Have a good day. Bedivere (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I apologize for implying that your harassment campaign started "now" when, as you wrote, you started it "nearly two days ago". I hope that misunderstanding has been cleared up. --RAN (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is no harassment campaign. That is what you should apologize for. You, like all of us, can be held accountable for your actions and that is all I've been doing. Bedivere (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bedivere:, They're doing the same thing to me after I have started removing foundation associated with problematic articles created by a user who has been using the platform to create promotional articles about his own family members and making pages about his parents, grand parents, great grand parents and such. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Others have questioned your actions and whether you have the temperament and maturity to have access to admin tools: "[this] is the sort of action that raises very real concerns over the fitness of an admin." See: here, over the kneejerk nomination of 423 images and threating blockage over a single edit disagreement. --RAN (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Could somebody please block this guy? They've been harassing me for over a week. Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete These items are an attempt of using Wikidata as personal genealogy service. Ankry (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It isn't "a personal genealogy service", the entries on humans are available for anyone to use in whatever educational purposes they need. Other serious and public databases of humans used for educational purposes: Findagrave with 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch with over 500 million entries on humans. Wikidata has about 10 million entries on humans. We only have restrictions on living humans involved in self promotion, and restrictions on private information on living humans. None of the individuals are living. --RAN (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete per Ankry; this kind of circular "notability" i.e., the categories on Commons are notable because of the Wikidata item which is notable because of Commons, is pretty ridiculous, and I'm surprised there isn't a policy to cover this. RAN should give actual uses of the people described on actual sitelinks, not this circular nonsense. Matrix (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, you need to cite policy, not "I'm surprised there isn't a policy to cover this", but actual policy, not your suggestions for future policy. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Is your argument that the references are not public, or that they are not serious? There is no requirement that any contributor: "give actual uses of the people described". I am not even sure what "actual uses" means, perhaps something like Wikipedia:Notability, where you need to be "famous". --RAN (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I guess we are going to now try the "not serious" route. Are the sources "comedic" or "satirical", like The Onion? --RAN (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it was pretty clear I was mentioning Wikidata:Notability. But yes, there are no serious and publicly available references. There are millions of people with geanalogy certificates and records, it is by no means a serious reference. Your addition of Fandom content to the first Q doesn't count either as a user-generated source from a "semantic wiki for genealogy" that allows you "you [to] keep your family history research" that you may or may not have created yourself. Matrix (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, your interpretation of policy is borderline wikilaywering, plus you are not considering the impact of your interpretation. You are effectively opening the doors to create millions of new Qs based on just a Findagrave and FamilySearch ID. Wikidata is not a genealogy service - we only store people if there is something somewhat notable about them, not just because their birth certificate is on a website. Yes, I am aware the line for notability on Wikidata is low, but it is not this low. By that logic if I upload my birth certificate onto one of these websites am I now magically notable? Matrix (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Wikidata is not a genealogy service", correct! It is a database of databases. To make it into a genealogy service we would have to delete everything that is not instance_of=human, and just keep the 10 million entries on people. "If I upload my birth certificate onto one of these websites am I now magically notable", no! You would be a living person involved in self-promotion, and you would be doxing a living person, even though that living person is yourself. Commons deletes documents on living people that discloses personal information on a regular basis. People need to be "somewhat notable", you are thinking of Wikipedia where people need to be famous. "Wikilaywering", if you mean citing precedents and policy in a cogent fashion, then I would say that is a good thing. --RAN (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are citing policy, but you are not considering the impacts of your interpretation (hence wikilawyering). I am not thinking of Wikipedia, no. You seem to be attacking everything except my core argument, so I'll condense it for you. Wikidata should not store a person just because they exist, and have a birth certificate or information on one of these genealogy websites. Doing so would mean the millions of people on these genealogy websites are now somehow notable enough to have a Wikidata entry. This is henceforth in no way a "serious" reference. Matrix (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make Wikidata:Notability to be more restrictive, like Wikipedia and require "fame", by all means lobby to make those changes. You can restrict Wikidata to only contain people that already have Wikipedia entries. --RAN (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete At least one of these items, William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir, isn't referenced to anything. Serious or otherwise. Whereas the others seem to just be referenced to ancestory.com/findagrave.com and I've seen nothing after years of editing entries for people on here to indicate those are good enough on their own. Least of all because both are volunteer created and edited databases that often contain many errors. Nor do I think they are considered "serious" for the purposes of Wikidata anyway. Again, at least not without anything else supporting whatever they being referenced for.

Plus there's a lot of un-referenced "facts" in these entries to begin with. To the point that if said "facts" were to be deleted all that would remain is "so-and-so is a person. Ancestory.com says so." And I just don't think that works per Wikidata:Notability "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." "X is X" isn't a description of anything and a single reference isn't "references." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We have over 1,000,000 data points without references, if that demands deletion, then they all will need to be deleted, otherwise it is selective enforcement. "Ancestory" [sic] is a strawman argument. For instance, for William Francis Norton, the link to Familysearch is connected to 22 documents, from his baptism in Ireland to his death certificate in 1939 in Manhattan. Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." That is 22 "serious and publicly available references". Once again, are you arguing that the 22 references are not serious, or are not public? Argument: "[Findagrave is a] created and edited databases that often contain many errors". That describes Wikipedia and Wikidata, yet Wikipedia had fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica. Both VIAF and LCCN use Wikidata despite that it "often contain many errors", and of course each of those authority control databases contain errors. See: Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control/LCCN_errors and Wikidata:VIAF/cluster/conflating entities. This is part of a concerted harassment campaign. --RAN (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): To quote from Dorades' comment below "Just adding that Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889), that were brought up above, are both Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320)." I'm sure you'll just chalk that up to a "concerted harassment campaign" on the part of whomever originally decided the properties don't imply notability though like you've done with everything else. Clearly everyone on here is just out to get you lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a personal project by Pigsonthewing, it doesn't trump: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are both serious and public. It was never codified into Wikidata:Notability. Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch (P2889) are both public and serious. If it does get codified into Wikidata:Notability then we have to delete every entry that uses them.

•  Delete - I don't think it is a good idea to create an item in Wikidata for every person that once lived and for whom a birth certificate or grave yard record can be found in some archive or so. Take Margaret Feeney (Q125973633) with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and William Norton (Q125973531) with the description: "(1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney". What made these people so special? From the descriptions I get the idea the most important part is that they have been married to each other. So what? No Wikimedia project like en-wiki has an article/page about both of them! If we keep items like this we might end up with billions of items about humans that make it extremely difficult to find the item about a person (living or not) that fits better in Wikidata. - Robotje (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." This is not Wikipedia and we do not use Wikipedia:Notability where entries on humans need to be "special" or famous. I agree with: "I don't think it is a good idea to create an item in Wikidata for every person that once lived", we should only have entries for people that can be "described using serious and publicly available references". Millions of people existed before "serious and publicly available references" existed. As to "extremely difficult to find the item" Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, and yet I am able to find the exact person I am looking for in a few nanoseconds. Again, this is part of a concerted harassment campaign, and none of the deletion rationales cite an actual rule that contradicts: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references". --RAN (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sure, "Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, and yet I am able to find the exact person I am looking for in a few nanoseconds." The first name I found on your user-page (ignoring the TOC) is John Smith. I just did a search for that name in findagrave.com and they mentioned that 87728 persons were found showing less than 1% of them. The latency for that website, the database search time, the time for your browser to display it, the refresh of your screen, the time for you to read it takes way more then a few nanoseconds. And still you try to convince me that you only need a few nanoseconds to find the right record. It is obvious you are bluffing. You also referred to my explanation as "... part of a concerted harassment campaign ..." What proof do you have that I took part of some kind of joint effort to harass you? Nobody asked or contacted me about this nor did I contact someone about this. Again you are bluffing. - Robotje (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think it is a good idea ..." (my emphasis added) Your thoughts are not Wikidata policy. None of the entries nominated are for a "John Smith", so there is no worry about finding the correct one. And when I search Findagrave for the John Smith who died in Ireland in 1861 I only find two people. Perhaps for you it will take milliseconds and not nanoseconds. It took me longer to type in the search parameters than to run the search. If you want to lobby for a new rule, where we disallow Wikidata entries for people with common names because it may be difficult to disambiguate them, that would be an interesting idea. I mention "John Smith" on my Wikidata page to show how linking is better at Wikidata than at Wikipedia, Q-number are permanent and Wikipedia entries for people with common names are constantly changing. People identified in images at the Flickr Commons project with common names, no longer point to the proper person as "John Smith (politician)" may become "John Smith (mayor)" and "John Smith (politician)" may become a disambiguation page.----RAN (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just adding that Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889), that were brought up above, are both Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). --Dorades (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a personal project by Pigsonthewing, it doesn't trump: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are both serious and public. It was never codified into Wikidata:Notability. There are over 5,000 entries using only Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889). There has been no attempt to delete them all and deleting 5 entries would constitute selective enforcement. --RAN (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Regardless of how many unreferenced entries currently exist I still think that at least things like birth dates where there's a specific warning should be referenced and "well, other people don't reference either. So whatever. I'm being harassed!" is a good excuse. So is there a reason you can't at least use the actual source documents as references instead of either just not referencing the information at all or doing it by way of a private document that no one outside of the family has access to? Otherwise it's kind of like using a Google Search as a reference instead of the actual website where you found the information. Or being like "the reference is a napkin that I wrote the information down on and tossed out afterwards week ago."

• Absolutely! Selective enforcement of any rule or selective enforcement of any law is harassment, and abuse of power. As you well know, the source document exists, you voted to delete it. It was deleted using the "bad faith" argument, based on a novel rule applied only in this case, that if someone adds a document at Commons and also adds an entry for that document at Wikidata, that represents "bad faith". And the rule will apply only for this particular case, and will not be applied universally. Another example of selective enforcement. --RAN (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The whole point in references is that people can check them for accuracy or whatever and that clearly can't be done here because of how your doing it. 100% those types of entries should entries should be deleted. Or at least the unreferenced information should be cited to something. You can't just say someone was born on a certain date or in a specific place without evidence and say it's cool because other people are doing it to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• How about you start a thread about deleting all the data that is unreferenced in Wikidata, all >1,000,000 data points, and I will support the outcome. That way you can show it isn't selective enforcement, and you really believe in the cause. And I am sure you already looked at the tombstones and birth, marriage and death records already provided for each person. It seems that whatever I do you are just going to keep moving the goalposts. --RAN (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Your doing the same deflecting as on Commons. This doesn't have anything to do with "all unreferenced data points" in Wikidata. I'm not the one who keeps moving the goalposts, you are. Stick to the topic and answer the question. Why not reference the entries for biographical information to the actual documents? Your the claiming they exist and it's where you got the data from. Your also the one who keeps citing "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." You can't have it both ways where the entries need to be described "using publicly available references" and then just whine that you don't have to do it that way because other people aren't. Especially since your the one who's repeatedly bringing the guideline up to begin with. It's your standard! --Adamant1 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Which of the >1,000,000 data points that do not have references are you challenging as incorrect? Please be specific. You keep bringing up that data is unreferenced and needs to be deleted, but have not said which data point you are challenging as incorrect. --RAN (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, your just deflecting. Your the one who repeatedly cited the notability requirements that say "the entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." So what exactly are the "publicly available references" your claiming make the entries you created notable and why haven't you added the references to them? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Now for the third time, which data point/points are you challenging? You keep shouting the same thing, but have not provided an answer, you just keep shouting "references" without any context or providing an example where a reference is missing or the data provided by a reference is incorrect. Then when I show that "publicly available references" are there, you move the goalpost to "serious", again without specifying a data point where the reference is not "serious". Then the cycle begins again. --RAN (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep I don't really see any issue here. Yann (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Take Margaret Feeney (Q125973633) with the description: "(1812-1891) wife of William Naughton" and William Norton (Q125973531) with the description: "(1809-1891) husband of Margaret Feeney". What made these people so special? From the descriptions I get the idea the most important part is that they have been married to each other. What serious source do you think was used? Who wrote that source and when and where was it published? Was the source a neutral source? If you have convincing answers for these questions I will certainly reconsider my 'vote' for deletion. - Robotje (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: "What serious source do you think was used?" The sources are all provided. Which of the 9 documents at Familysearch do think is incorrect, or biased, or not serious, which are you challenging as containing errors? Her marriage and death records come from the State of Massachusetts. Do you think that the information on her tombstone was deliberately incorrect because the person that provided it was biased or not a "neutral source"? You wrote: "What made these people so special?" Being "special" or famous is the realm of Wikipedia not Wikidata. Wikidata is just an authority control database with information from other databases, that are "serious and publicly available". The argument that Wikidata should follow Wikipedia notability rules or only contain entries for people with Wikipedia entries has been rejected many times. --RAN (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• My summary We have four arguments for deletion but none of them cite a specific policy from Wikidata:Notability that is contravened. One argument is "What made these people so special?" but we do not require people to be "special" or entries have "actual uses", that is why we have Wikipedia. Another argument was the "John Smith" argument, that if we have too many entries, people will not be able to find the one they are looking for. We can't read minds or foretell the future to know which "John Smith" anyone will be looking for. If you are looking for a famous "John Smith" search in Wikipedia. Findagrave has 230 million entries on humans, and Familysearch has over 500 million entries on humans, all easy to search for. Another argument was that the references were not "serious", but the references were chosen by Wikidata to be Identifiers because they are "serious and public". --RAN (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also the argument that the entries aren't "described using serious and publicly available references", which you seem to be ignoring even though your the one who's cited that exact guideline multiple times. Well, at least not outside of wikilaywyering by citing other stuff. But still. You can't just selectively bring up a guideline to support your argument and then ignore it when it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Per others above, Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) and FamilySearch person ID (P2889) are Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). Yes, they are identifiers, but they do not imply notability. The idea that these identifiers were chosen by Wikidata's community to be identifiers merely because they were "serious" references and imply notability is wrong - for example, YouTube channel ID (P2397) exists as an identifier, but merely having a YouTube channel ID doesn't imply notability. The purpose of an identifier is to identify the subject, not to create notability out of thin air. Matrix (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• These two arguments contradict each other. One says we need to have "publicly available references" (like Findagrave and Familysearch). The other says we can't have Findagrave and Familysearch because they appear in a list called "not imply notability" and somehow that trumps Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." There is no proviso in Wikidata:Notability that mentions the "not imply notability" list. If you want to change the terms and wording of Wikidata:Notability, you have to lobby for the changes. --RAN (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What do you think the word "serious" in the guideline implies? Because you seem to be leaving that part of it out of the equation. Its also why a source like YouTube doesn't go towards notability even though its "publicly available." So how are Findagrave or familysearch "serious references" or anymore so then YouTube (which I assume you agree doesn't infer notability)? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A serious source, rather than a "satirical" source, like The Onion (Q618236), that deliberately provides fake news for entertainment. See: w:List of satirical news websites. YouTube is a straw man argument (Q912820), none of the entries use YouTube as a reference for any of the data provided. --RAN (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is a straw man argument (Q912820) Not any more or less then you citing other unsourced entries as an excuse for why these one's shouldn't be deleted. I think it's relevant though because it and websites like findagrave.com both contain user generated content. Which at least IMO is why they wouldn't qualify as "serious references." Or to put it another way, a website created by users who and don't have an established process of fact checking just isn't an earnest reference for factual information.

• "A website created by users", that sound like Wikipedia and like Wikidata. I guess we should warn the Library of Congress to stop linking their LCCN database to Wikidata, perhaps they are unaware that it is crowdsourced. Actually Findagrave (FAG) is under the editorial control of Ancestry.com and does have a process of correcting errors, just like Wikipedia and Wikidata corrects errors. You also are not distinguishing between using Findagrave as an Identifier and using Findagrave as a reference for a data point. None of the Wikidata entries nominated are using FAG as a reference for a datapoint, so this is another example of a "strawman argument". --RAN (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That's also why I've asked several times now why you don't just reference the original documents that supposedly contain the information. I'd be perfectly fine with you using say the United States Census over just a link to a Findagrave page that doesn't say were the birth and death information even came from to begin with. I'd consider that a serious source compared to there being essentially none with Findagrave. I don't know how many times I've requested a picture of a gravestone on there and it turned out the original birth or death dates were wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You wrote: "I don't know how many times I've requested a picture of a gravestone on there and it turned out the original birth or death dates were wrong." If you do not know how many times, perhaps the answer in zero. You are welcome to link to the Findagrave entries where this occurred. Findagrave keeps a log of all changes. --RAN (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• OMG. We cycled back to shouting not "serious references", yet you have not told me which data point you are challenging as incorrect. Tomorrow you will be back to shouting not "public references", again without a specific data point you are challenging as incorrect. If you think Findagrave is not a "serious or public" website, lobby to have it deleted as an Identifier from all records. --RAN (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep we don't delete entries because "What made these people so special?" or they are not notable. on wikidata we do create thousands of scientific papers everyday (just a random example) that "have nothing notable". and we create the associated authors that "have nothing notable" and "that have nothing so special". i strongly agree with those who encourage the contributor to add reference for those items, so the accuracy of the info is clear and easily verifiable. --Deansfa (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's the point. There are no "serious references" per above. Find a Grave is user-generated information, and hence not serious per above. Matrix (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do not appear to understand the difference between an Identifier and a reference, none of the entries use Findagrave as a reference, all have Findagrave as an Identifier, An Identifier just points to other websites that have an entry for that person. I think I have now asked at least six times: What data point is using FAG as a reference, or is unreferenced, or even under-referenced? Each time I ask, I get no response. You just keep shouting "serious references" as if it was a magic spell. If you think Findagrave should not be an Identifier you are free to lobby for its removal, and it can be removed from every entry. --RAN (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I will end up asking a seventh time, since it is still unanswered, and you are again going to shout "serious references" again somewhere down below. --RAN (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  For the n-teenth time, the mere existence of an identifier for an item doesn't imply notability. YouTube channel ID was an example of this, and is not a straw man argument. There is no policy that shows the existence of an item's identifier implies notability. But to be honest, these words clearly aren't being taken into consideration by you, so I might start an RFC or something. Matrix (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  You still are conflating a reference with an Identifier. The are not synonyms. --RAN (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep per Wikidata:Notability, Q125118469 contains a valid sitelink to a Wikimedia Commons page. --Greghenderson2006 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  And the Wikimedia Commons page is being kept because there is a Wikidata item. Such a circular narrative has to be dealt with somewhere, preferably here. Matrix (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. ... It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." There is no proviso demanding that two different people have to create the entry in Commons and the entry in Wikidata. You can lobby for those changes at Commons instead of an ad hoc deletion based on a non-existent rule that you hope someday will be created. Stick to notability rules as they currently exist, not based on how you wish they existed. --RAN (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You can lobby for those changes at Commons I'm pretty sure that conversation has already been had on Commons' end several times now and the same argument was made in reverse. "You can lobby for those changes at Wikidata if you disagree with them." The whole thing is just a curricular strawman by people who either create questionable Wikidata items or uploaded out of scope content to Commons and can't make a better argument for it. The fact is that it needs to be resolved though and this seems like as good a place as any. It would at least be better then the bludging whine-fest you've turned this into. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a reason Wikidata:Use common sense exists - to ensure following rules without a clear purpose does not occur. This is an example of such a case. Matrix (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The policy at Wikidata:Use common sense reads: "If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, use common sense and ignore it." The policy is about keeping entries, not deleting them. --RAN (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep per Wikidata:Notability "1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons.", "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." and maybe even "3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.". BergwachtBern (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • canvassing attempt --206.189.20.28 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Bulk deletion request

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

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

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

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

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

Q112259721

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

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

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

Bulk deletion from The Peerage

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

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

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

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

Q112633731

WinCommerce (Q112633731): Vietnamese consumer goods and retail company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q111086347

ITD Vietnam (Q111086347): Coaching & Training center in Vietnam: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q111077196

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

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

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

Q111077449

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

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

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

Q116149665

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

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

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

Q108440424

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

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

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

Q122182842

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

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

•  Keep per WD:N "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." BergwachtBern (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The sole reference on the item describes him as "Local UNESCO World Heritage volunteer". That's not enough to identify this person in a clear unambiguous way. --Dorades (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Published author, we just do not crawl, and create entries for articles for the journals he wrote for. --RAN (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Which papers, chapters, books or other writings did he author? --Dorades (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Site Formation Analysis of Locality GaJj17 in the Koobi Fora Formation, Northern Kenya --RAN (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Site Formation Analysis of Middle Stone Age Locality GaJj17 in the Koobi Fora Formation, Northern Kenya --RAN (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are these self-published, peer-reviewed, published in a renowned journal or publishing house, ...? --Dorades (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Q112846760

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

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

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

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

Q89125201

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

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

Q92375119

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

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

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

Q92401284

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

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

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

Q92397370

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

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

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

Q92401347

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

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

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

Q124472213

Fatemeh Kobra Latifiyan (Q124472213): Iranian motivator: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q113884845

Rahmatollah Latifiyan (Q113884845): Iranian benefactor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q113885308

Mohammad Hossein Latifiyan (Q113885308): Experimental Researcher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q89121278

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

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

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

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

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

•  Keep per WD:N "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." - 10 external IDs stored in the item. BergwachtBern (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Two of the identifiers (IMDb and TMDB) don't suggest notability; one (Letterboxd) says it suggests notability but seems to be based on TMDB so that should probably be changed; the others don't say anything about notability - could they also be based on IMDb or Wikidata or other user-generated content? Peter James (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Q49292210

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

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

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

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

Q111309102

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

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

•  Keep per WD:N "2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references." BergwachtBern (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Q47506301

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

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

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

Q18481161

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

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

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

Q125967868

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

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

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

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

Q123043694

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

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

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

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

Q111667822

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

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

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

Q114964941

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

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

•  Keep valid link to their university profile. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep The reference URLs were all a broken link but I've added some working links to described at URL (P973) which should be enough to show notability. Item creator should update the references.--DrGavinR (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Q126724843

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

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

•  Keep It has a valid Identifier. --RAN (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a identifier that imply notability. Fralambert (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• That is someone's pet project that was never incorporated into Wikidata:Notability, it doesn't trump "serious and public" references. The "Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability" was never made clear by the creator, Pigsonthewing, if he meant Wikidata:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability. When I asked him, he said he had no input as to what Identifiers were added to the property. --RAN (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Probably  Keep If it's on a map wouldn't it automatically pass WDN2? I've added another identifier: OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) This was also the location of a murder in 2008 which was widely reported in the British press Piecesofuk (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Being on what looks like a property list or map doesn't establish notability. William Graham (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikidata:Notabilty only requires that "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." --RAN (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment should be considered together with Waterloo Murder: Council Admits Door Had Been Broken For 7 Months (Q126936162) (Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q126936162). --Dorades (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Journalism coverage and being a good neighbor for OpenStreetMap, which benefits from the linkable identifier.--Lord Minimoff (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320). --Dorades (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Per above: "It's not a identifier that imply notability": That was Pigsonthewing's project that was never incorporated into Wikidata:Notability, it doesn't trump "serious and public" references. If you want to incorporate that list into Wikidata:Notability, there will have to be a vote on it. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Q22259959

İlyas Həsənov (Q22259959): Azeri scientist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

•  Keep valid site link to their biography at the hospital website. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Q100658686

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Keep. from narrative universe (P1080), fictional universe described in (P1445) and takes place in fictional universe (P1434) do not require there to be multiple works of fiction to justify a universe item. I personally do not see the value in creating one in order for it to be used on a single item, but this particular one has fictional character items as well. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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