Open main menu

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

(Redirected from Wikidata:RFD)


Requests for deletions
Items which 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.

Before deleting items, check to ensure that they are not in use. This can be easily done with the "links" link below the header of each request.

Do not try to pre-emptively delete an item because its page is up for deletion on a Wikimedia project. The link will be removed by bots and reported here in the future if a deletion takes place.

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 1) the user is still active on Wikidata and 2) 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.

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard instead. If help is needed with the merging of items, see the instructions at Help:Merge.

Add a new request

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 July 22.

Requests for deletions

medium

72 open requests for deletions.

Contents

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}Edit

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.

RequestsEdit

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



Example biographiesEdit

Q29962164Edit

Example biography (Q29962164): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kjetil r: You should use Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189), Second Wikidata sandbox (Q13406268) or test.wikidata.org for this purpose or take advantage of arbitrary access and create a real-world example. --Pasleim (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) and/or Second Wikidata sandbox (Q13406268) could be used in some cases, but we also have a legitimate need for having a semi-stable dummy item that could be used for documentation purposes. I don't know test.wikidata.org very well, but is it really suitable for such use cases? For example, the birth date and death date of [1] do not appear in the infobox at [2]. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This item doesn't seem to be used on no.wikipedia.org anymore. @Kjetil_r: Can you confirm? --Pasleim (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kjetil_r, Pasleim, Matěj Suchánek: no activity on this discussion for 4 months, what should we do. And what about example biography 2 (Q30049473)? (I mean, we may keep one but 2 seems overkill). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Q30049473Edit

example biography 2 (Q30049473): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It is being used for test, development, and documentation purposes on no.wikipedia. Isn't that within scope for what we can do? Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

I need an example item where I can add or remove data at will when I work on making changes to infoboxes. I can't really do that to Douglas Adams (Q42). Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep both. As Kjetil_r has demonstated, these serve sensible on-wiki software development and documentation purposes that actual biographies or Wikidata sandbox aren't sufficient for. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

~410 Azerbaijani filmsEdit

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

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

Q15348443Edit

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: For me it isn't clear that Solenostoma paroicum (Q60617107) and Jungermannia paroica (Q15348443) are identical. Can you elaborate? --Pasleim (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As I understand, Solenostoma paroicum/shining flapwort is synonymic to Jungermannia paroica. --Wolverène (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Christian Ferrer (talk)
Circeus
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Enwebb
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MPF
Manojk
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
PEAK99
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
RaboKarbakian
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
TomT0m
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
Tubezlob
William Avery
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy: can you provide some expertise, please …? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

These are two different names, that is, two different formal entities. If there was more information a "taxon synonym" / "is a synonym of ..." statement could be added, but this information is not present. We really do need a "this name is homotypic with" property. - Brya (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not an expert in Bryophytes, but the two taxa do have the same basionym: Nardia paroica Schiffn. Lotos 58: 320. 1910. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC), 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC).
Yes, that is what I said: they are homotypic. - Brya (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Also – for what it's worth – ITIS lists Solenostoma paroicum (Schiffn.) Schust. as a synonym of Jungermannia fossombronioides Aust. (Q17290457), but doesn't list Jungermannia paroica at all. Then again I guess ITIS is fairly often not very well updated these days. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC).
Yes. And Tropicos says that Jungermannia fossombronioides is treated as a synonym of Solenostoma fossombronioides by Stotler, R. E. & B. J. Crandall-Stotler. 2017. A synopsis of the liverwort flora of North America north of Mexico. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 102(4): 574–709. A synopsis of the liverwort flora of North America north of Mexico. Information on bryophytes is fairly scarce. - Brya (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Q57823196Edit

Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho (Q57823196): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The reference is under the instance (P31) statement, page 14 of PDF, published by the Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano, Habitação e Meio Ambiente (Sedham) of Salvador in 2007. If a government document is insufficient to support an item, please delete it. Prburley (talk)
  • @Luan: is a mixup or not? --- Jura 07:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Ainda mantenho minha proposição de eliminação. Em resumo, mesmo alterando a denominação para algo que está previsto em lei, ainda é somente algo previsto em lei, sem a efetivação de uma regulamentação que delimitaria de forma mais precisa o território (o que está e o que não está situado nele). Explicando mais detalhadamente, na página 14 do PDF encontra-se a inciso XIII, art. 230, da Lei n.° 7.400/2008 (PDDU) de 27 de fevereiro de 2007 (que dispõe sobre o General plan (Q837215) de Salvador (Q36947)). Lá trata da "APCP do Rio Vermelho", ou seja, da Área de Proteção Cultural e Paisagística (APCP) do Rio Vermelho. Não há nada sobre "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" ou "APC--Rio Vermelho". Vale dizer que a Lei n.° 7.400/2008 foi revogada pela Lei n.º 9.069/2016 (vide art.411), encerrando uma série de contestações judiciais, mas os termos sobre a APCP do Rio Vermelho foram mantidos/copiados (vide art. 269, inciso XIII). Além disso, não existe ainda regulamentação da APCP do Rio Vermelho pelo poder legislativo municipal. A regulamentação em legislação específica é importante para identificar, dentre outras coisas, a delimitação em escalas adequadas para cada APCP e é requerida pela Lei n.º 9.069/2016 para a devida institucionalização como APCP. Por exemplo, existe regulamentação para a "APCP da Ladeira da Barra/Santo Antônio da Barra" e outras 8 APCP (vide Lei n.º 8165/2012). --Luan (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Luan: & @Jura1:Uma mensagem do: Instituto do Patrimônio Artístico e Cultural da Bahia, Secretaria de Cultura do Estado da Bahia (IPAC), 11/2/2019 (hoje.) "[...] no bairro do Rio Vermelho tem uma poligonal de tombamento. Vale ressaltar que no entorno da poligonal alguns imóveis são tombados individualmente. [...] O nome é o Poligonal do Rio Vermelho."Prburley (talk)
    Should the item "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" be "Poligonal do Rio Vermelho"? Thanks, Paul Prburley (talk)
    Onde isso foi dito? Nessa imagem no Facebook? Independentemente de onde foi dito, vale salientar que toda a legislação anteriormente citada e a Sedham são da esfera municipal (municipal prefecture of Salvador (Q53930901)). Já o Instituto do Património Artístico e Cultural da Bahia (Q10302963) pertence à esfera estadual (Q61641530). Logo, não tem nada a ver uma coisa com a outra, pois as esferas de governo são autônomas em suas classificações de patrimônio. Em listagem de 2017, também não há nada na esfera federal (National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (Q391537)) como "Conjunto Urbano" ou na coluna de dados do tombamento "paisagístico" relativo ao Rio Vermelho. Essa tal poligonal também não consta na lista do IPAC para bens em Salvador. Só uma frase postada em Facebook não prova nada, na ausência de uma lei, de uma delimitação, de um processo de tombamento. Esse item deve ser eliminado. --Luan (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Onde isso foi dito? Na minha correspondência com o Instituto do Património Artístico e Cultural da Bahia (Q10302963), um órgão governamental do Estado da Bahia. Leia a mensagem acima. Prburley (talk)
    @Prburley: eu li. Você disse quem, não disse a fonte da informação. Independentemente, você começou dizendo que era um tombamento municipal (apontou legislação municipal). Provei que não existia. Agora tenta dizer que há um tombamento estadual (apontou uma aparente fala do IPAC). Provei também que não existe o tombamento nessa esfera. Me adiantei e mostrei também que não há tombamento federal. Não há mais porque manter esse item. @Jura1: can you delete this item? --Luan (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: As a librarian I believe government documents and communication with the relevant government entities point to establishing some entity--and working towards its proper name, not a deletion. This is well covered in Wikidata: Notability. Prburley (talk)
    @Luan: Please review the guidelines at: Presumir a boa-fé. Language like "inventado" assumes that an editor randomly "invents" things rather than editing in good faith using given sources. Thanks! Prburley (talk)
    @Prburley: você pula de uma esfera governamental para outra tentando provar sem sucesso que o item que criou tem base na realidade para além do teu solitário entendimento. As esferas são autônomas, uma não pode intervir no que for estabelecido pela outra. Logo, o IPAC não normatiza sobre Sedham ou sobre o PDDU, pois estes são municipais, e vice-versa. "Área de Proteção Contígua--Rio Vermelho" não existe, em nenhuma esfera de governo. "Área de Proteção Cultural e Paisagística (APCP) do Rio Vermelho" foi prevista em lei de Salvador, mas nunca foi criada, delimitada. Sem isso, não é possível identificar o que está dentro dela ou não; não é possível identificar qual imóvel é abrigado nessa área territorial; não é possível determinar o tamanho dessa área; não há data, características ou condições de proteção. "Poligonal do Rio Vermelho" não teve a fonte/referência que confirme sua existência, a não ser a imagem publicada no Facebook que apontei. Mas novamente, não há informações sobre essa possível área, tamanho características, imóveis incluídos, etc. O fato de ser bibliotecário não parece te ajudar no processo de busca por fontes que confirmem a existência detalhada do item que quer tanto manter. A boa-fé não permanece diante de uma situação como essa, lembrando que isso começou na página de discussão do item na qual você me ignorou e apontou fontes sem relação com o item, ao que se soma as mensagens alternantes aqui entre as esferas de governo no Brasil, mostrando desconhecimento e insistência infundada. Esse item poderia muito bem figurar em Wikipedia:Silly Things (Q4995845) ou Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (Q14629005). --Luan (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    A existência de tal entidade ainda não foi comprovada. Por isso, além de remover informações falsas, removi também as alegações não verificáveis de localização e instância. --Luan (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Q40985505Edit

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

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

@Tommy Kronkvist: it has a valid identifier, thus I tend to keep it. If some of the statements are not correct, please use deprecated rank to remove this item from query results. Is that possible? --MisterSynergy (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Perhaps, but I don't think so. As far as I understand it, the NCBI Taxonomy identifier regards a species of virus named Cebine betaherpesvirus 1 (Q24808723). It has been found in two host species: humans, and in an unspecified specimen belonging to the Gracile capuchin monkey genus Cabron (Q8447051). The Virus-Host DB page can be found here: https://www.genome.jp/virushostdb/1125844 I'm only guessing here, but it seems the scientists studying this particular strain of virus didn't bother to identify which of the fifteen or so species of the Cebus genus that particular monkey belonged to. The reason for this is of course that they were not really studying the monkey at all, but the virus using it as host.
Normally within the field of taxonomy the term "species" or the abbreviation "sp." is only used when failing to pinpoint a particular species within a recognized genus. More or less, "sp." is only a placeholder for a taxon name until the specimen has been properly identified as being a member of a valid species, or described as a new species. In this case however, no one ever tried to do this. In fact, instead of (sort of...) specifying the object as "Cebus sp." they might just as well simply have called it "monkey". In this particular case "Cebus sp." doesn't really relate to any specific taxon at all – hence, it can never be a "deprecated" taxon either.
Lastly, perhaps @Pigsonthewing have an opinion about all this? He's familiar with most things about taxonomy, and on top of that also knows more about the Wikidata tech details than me. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for asking. I have no definitve answer. On the one hand, MisterSynergy is correct in regard the identifier making it notable. On the other, if it is valid, why not the same for every other (non-monotypic) genus? Perhaps we should keep it, but with a different value for P31? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "keep it, but with a different value for P31" is what I had in mind; I am just not qualified to select another value item :-)
The item was created by User:Magnus Manske, apparently as an import from Taxonomy database of the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (Q13711410). If we kept the item, we would avoid that someone would re-create a new item for that database entry in the future. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Q55687191Edit

clarification (Q55687191): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q61446814Edit

Q61446814: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

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

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

Q22284875Edit

Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It look like Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q567079) is about all the station including Fernbahnhof and S-bahn rail. and Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) is only about s-bahn. but I don't know if it is right or not. - yona b (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
That's correct. That's why Q22284875 has a Property:P361 pointing to Q567079. One cannot merge these items without removing that property first. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 06:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I started to clean up the three items. But it is a bit difficult Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q567079) Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) Jungfernheide metro station (Q19951075) --GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The content of Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) should definitely not get removed until the deletion request is decided. But we have to decide if a station with a part for the S-Bahn (Q95723) and a part for the regular railway should have two separate items or not. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I would propose to stay only with item Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q567079) and to remove item Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) as the Berlin S-Bahn (Q99654) of Berlin has only combined items with S-Bahn and Train. There are only separate item for Berlin U-Bahn (Q68646), see also item Berlin Alexanderplatz station (Q698497), Berlin-Friedrichstraße railway station (Q702402) or Berlin Hauptbahnhof (Q1097). --GodeNehler (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the case here, but S-Bahn stations are quite often treated as separate stations from the main line stations, they share the name with, if they don't share any track infrastructure (which is the case here). So, I guess, we should keep separate items for all three stations (main line (Q3238851), S-Bahn (Q95723) and rapid transit (Q5503)). --MB-one (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The items seems to be confused at the moment. In reality the station has 2 S-Bahn tracks, 2 U-Bahn tracks, 2 regular train tracks and at least 2 metro bus stops(I'm not sure from memory whether it's 2 or 4 metro stops). The S-Bahn part and the train part is owned DB Netz (Q896765) but neither buses nor U-Bahn is. ChristianKl❫ 13:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Q59783740Edit

according to some sources (Q59783740): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

I guess it is supposed to be a qualifyer and is used as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Guye, this value is for Property:P1480, the English label has already been set.--Arbnos (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Arbnos: sourcing circumstances (P1480) is where I discovered this item. Just to clarify, Q59783740 didn't have an English label until Arbnos added one. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  Keep seems a bit unuseful (putting some sources in reference should be enough and more direct) but legit. @Arbnos: could you add a description? (something like on circa (Q5727902) or presumably (Q18122778))

Q61043828Edit

Alexia Gaudeul (Q61043828): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  •   Keep Clearly notable subject (and one who self-publishes [8], [9] much of what we say about them). Content issues should be resolved without taking the "nuclear" step of deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also prefer to just remove the « harmful statements » as @Pigsonthewing: said but if there is no other choice I guess we should respect their right to be forgotten so   Wait first and then   Delete. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per request. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Q28552958Edit

Ernesto Fernández (Q28552958): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

Q11773980Edit

Q11773980: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an instance of microregion (Q11781066); the site link was for an article redirected to Q12037085, which is a list of microregions in Zlín Region (Q192536). The notability guidelines for Wikidata and the various Wikipedias are not all identical, so it could still be notable. Peter James (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63295873Edit

Q63295873: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

@四葉亭四迷: Any thought? --Okkn (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
sources [10][11][12][13]--四葉亭四迷 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to make it a lexeme or entitya lexeme entity or non-lexeme entity? If non-lexeme, you would need to have at least one sitelink. (I don't think other conditions in WD:N will meet either.) If lexeme, it has to be attested and idiomatic. whym (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I would also say   Delete the item and put the data in a Lexeme entity (@Whym: Lexeme are entity and this locution seems to be clearly both attested and idiomatic). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. (It's now applied.) How do you know it is idiomatic? The phrase is sort of like wikt:second-class citizen, but without the programming-language sense (and not 'inferior', obviously). If it is an idiom, I would expect it has a non-idiomatic reading in addition to an idiomatic reading. To me, 上級国民 seems to have only one sense - the 'privileged' / 'superior" sense, which seems straightforward and almost literal. whym (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Q60700696Edit

General Prosecutor of the Republic (Q60700696): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the same: Attorney General of Mexico (Q1507504) relates to Procuraduría General de la República (Q50150345) like General Prosecutor of the Republic (Q60700696) relates to Fiscal General de la República (Q60678925). - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 07:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Q741032Edit

Trigger point (Q741032): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

They both have a zh.wp link, can someone native check if that is true they are the same? Q.Zanden questions? 23:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Lakokat: Please take a look. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Q20984678Edit

eater (Q20984678): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  Keep. It's OK. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment @Yair rand: if this is not the proper way, how would you suggest to do it? In particular, I'm thinking about competitive eaters like Molly Schuyler (Q6896676) who do have for principal - and sometimes professional - occupation to be an eater. Until then I would lean towards   Keep. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: One's occupation can be participating in eating competitions, but one's occupation can't be "being an entity that eats". (I see that User:Thierry Caro has created competitive eater (Q63554580) for the actual occupation, which is more accurate.) man-eater (Q1365331) and Cookie Monster (Q1754267) are not modeled in a way that makes sense, though. We have main food source (P1034), though I'm not sure that would work here. --Yair rand (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Q57904781Edit

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
no more links Alain Schneider (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep "Request of the person who is the subject of the notice" is not a valid reason for deletion; and is in any case stated without evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Alain Schneider: pourrais-tu donner des détails ? d'où viens la demande de suppression, directement de la concernée ? est-ce publique ? sur quoi cette demande est-elle basée ? etc. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment @VIGNERON: Cette personne est une collègue de travail qui ne voit pas en quoi des éléments personnels ont à être mis dans une base de données publique. Elle considère que c'est contraire au RGPD et veut s'adresser à la CNIL. J'ai d'ailleurs quasiment vidé (avant que tu ne les remettes) la notice de toute information et enlevé tous les liens Alain Schneider (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Indeed, after carefull checking most of these data are not public so I would lean towards   Delete at the very least and in any case, the history should be purge by an admin. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cleopatra (disambiguation)Edit

Q60374066: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

They can't be merged now because they're interlinked with Property:P460. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 07:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
In January @Moebeus: add Property:P460 to all the item and didn't merge them. maybe he can help us to understand why not merge them. - yona b (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@יונה בנדלאק: Hi there! It is the practise of Wikidata:WikiProject_Names that each spelling variant gets its own item, even if all that separates them is just an accent. Since each name should be linked to a corresponding disambiguation page, it's cleaner if those follow the same "rule". Rather than merging, the different spellings are instead linked through Property:P460. This has the added bonus of allowing more than one disambiguation page per language, of which there are quite a few. Anyways, that was the rationale, if you guys feel strongly about it I won't protest, but it would be helpful if a differing practise is anchored in some sort of written guidelines and cleared with Wikidata:WikiProject_Names. Moebeus (talk)

Q31274785Edit

Q31274785: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Technically two different names, Q31274785 is a variant for the people who living in Estonia or Finland with the official Latin script, Q19597898 is for citizens of countries with the Cyrillic script as official. I'm not sure there's need on merging even if the names in fact direct equivalents of each other. --Wolverène (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Q18974314Edit

COX3 (Q18974314): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Magnus Manske: There seem to be a lot of GeneDB ID's for this item. Why do you think they are wrong? ChristianKl❫ 13:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Q61873305Edit

Pf_M76611 (Q61873305): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Can't delete, excesively used in COX3 (Q18974314). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Q820728Edit

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  Keep notable enough per WD:N. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Q31441239Edit

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

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

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

Q61866606Edit

Summaries list (Q61866606): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

If deleted, please replace the item with interwiki links on all local pages. This was the main reason I created the item - to link the same code gadgets inbetween to make it easier to administrate. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Q61870979Edit

Default summaries (Q61870979): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

If deleted, please replace the item with interwiki links on all local pages. This was the main reason I created the item - to link the same code gadgets inbetween to make it easier to administrate. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Q64058765Edit

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: could you elaborate? De facto, this item does meet the notability policy, Wikidata:Notability criteria 3: "structural need". Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: There is a link from the teacher element only.There is no need to create elements of unknown pupils David (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  Keep no reason for deletion, this item clearly fulfill criteria 3 (and maybe also 2) of Wikidata:Notability. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Q10846607Edit

Bi-Heart (Q10846607): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  Keep, @Cohaf: this item is clearly and obviously not empty. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON:. My error. Read empty item wrongly. However, does it meet notablity without any sitelinks? I'm not sure #2 in WD:N is met.Regards, --Cohaf (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cohaf:, no problem. Well all album by this singer have an item and several of them even have a en.wp article (see en:Category:Joey Yung albums), so I would say it's notable enough. Plus, it clearly met #3 of WD:N (if you want to have the full list of albums for instance). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As of the articles I'm not that sure. I'm here as zhwiki deleted that only article created for this item twice. I'm unsure of #2. For #3 I'll follow community consensus, I'm unsure here. @VIGNERON:.--Cohaf (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cohaf: do you know why this article was deleted on zh.wp (I can't find it on zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2018/12/27) but not the other albums by the same singer? Is it really because of notability or is there other reasons? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON:Lacks notablity. Its lost in the page due to the some edit conflict. --Cohaf (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, found it zh:Special:Diff/52629670 (not sure why @Jimmy Xu: removed the deletion, it should be fixed), and actually it seems more like a lack of source than a lack of notability (obv, the second is related to the first but it's not the same thing, espacially as Wikipedia notabilities is not the same as Wikidata notability). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON. The article was deleted due to it cannot meet notablity standards of the Chinese Wikipedia. That's my homewiki anyway. This should be the correct interpretation. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Q32851726Edit

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

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

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ping creator @Valentina.Anitnelav:.
Ping @Nihonjoe: you mean that no-one ever thought that yokai could be non-fictional and that there is not a single non-fictional work that talk about yokai? I'm not a specialist of this subject but this seems wrong.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I'm not aware of any works that treat them as anything other than fiction. Regardless, there are no articles on any wiki that point to this item, so there is no valid reason to keep the data item. There's more value in allowing data items for userpages than for having a data item that will likely never have a valid article about it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 17:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If deletion isn't acceptable, it should be merged with Q503186. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: this item is about "yōkai in a work of fiction" not "yōkai treated as fiction" ; it's close but different (a book can treat them as fiction without being a fiction book itself, isn't is the case of most books in en:Yōkai#Further_reading?). There is many others items with the same patern: yuki-onna in a work of fiction (Q61600414) ghost in a work of fiction (Q30061299), angel in a work of fiction (Q42092139), undead in a work of fiction (Q30061600), jinn in a work of fiction (Q30308127), sprite in a work of fiction (Q30318085) ; I'm guessing they are needed for ontological reasons (criteria 3 of Wikidata:Notability which is very different from Wikipedia concept of Notability), @Valentina.Anitnelav: could you maybe explain why these item are needed?
« there are no articles on any wiki », well just like many items on Wikidata (I would even say it's the vast majority ; almost all of the 20 million item about "scholarly article" don't have and will never have a Wikipedia article).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So the vast majority of what is on Wikidata is pointing at nothing? What's the purpose, then? This is why I avoid this place. It makes no sense. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan on enwiki! 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: « pointing at nothing », well it's pointing at a lot of things, just not Wikimedia projects. Why? very often because Wikipedias need them! One way to look at it is to think that Wikidata is like Commons but for Data. There is way more files on Commons than there are used on Wikipedia, it's a bit the same for Wikidata and data. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, these items are needed for ontological reasons. From a practical point of view: characters from pop culture/fiction should be kept distinct from characters from mythology/folk belief to make it possible to e.g. search for all characters from folk belief without getting e.g. Rarity (Q9300505), Count Dracula (Q3266236) or Casper the Friendly Ghost (Q1442531) into the result set. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: thanks. So   Keep for me. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Q31797707Edit

Q31797707: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

Q2164022Edit

Destination Sign (Q2164022): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

@Hkbusfan: The Japanese articles need to be merged first. Please ask help here. Bencemac (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hkbusfan: There are also different Commons categories connected, so a chose has to be made there too. Or these items are actually different, in which case these should not be merged. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 06:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Q45290019Edit

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

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

@P199: not sure to understand where the hoax is, it's referenced and seems notable enough for WD for me. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Definitely not a Hoax, you may argue its not notable enough but it surely exist. Sokuya (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Q3253629Edit

list of Chinese given names (Q3253629): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hold on for now. @Jura1: you have not fulfilled goal 2.--Roy17 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
As it's your personal goal, please ensure to fullfil it. Please refrain from asking users to do what bots do automatically. --- Jura 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Q14524117Edit

Fire engines of the German Democratic Republic (Q14524117): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The item exists twice under other names --Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold Please clarify which is the other item or do the merge yourself. Not valid reason for deleting. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65092037Edit

Zoe Carter (Q65092037): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doesn’t pass Wikidata notability guidelines Elizabethg507 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Elizabethg507: it seems to pass the criteria 3 of Wikidata notability guidelines, could you clarify? VIGNERON (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Q211387Edit

brazing (Q211387): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

It was previously named "Soldering", but it referred to brazing in most other languages (e.g. French and Italian). The item for Brazing already exists: Q13389141. They should be merged but quite honestly i don't know how to do that. --Pain96 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Q27533784Edit

Gerlach (Q27533784): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused and mixing up given and family names JuTa (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Q1211272Edit

signage (Q1211272): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item after moved/merged with the same item at Q5973946 - delete or merge. --W.carter (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
{{Ping}W.carter}} It has many subclasses, where do you want to redirect them? And by the way, are you sure your (incomplete) merge with signage (Q5973946) was correct? --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Infovarius, sorry for the delay, I didn't get your ping since to code was faulty. Nevermind. The original thought was to merge signage (Q1211272) with signage (Q5973946) but I wasn't sure how to do it correctly with all the coding. I speak Swedish and English fluently so I'm sure they are about the same kind of item. To be on the safe side I posted a question about it on Wikidata:Project chat#Merging two Signage and got an agree. We also found a couple of other stray articles about the same subject (I also speak French and a bit of Spanish). It would be great if all of this could be redirected to one item. --W.carter (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Q5722734Edit

Q5722734: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Conflict with مانفرد --Stephan.dedalus (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold Has a valid link. Please clarify. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like a duplicate of Manfred (Q1889169). Peter James (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q22808320Edit

human name disambiguation page (Q22808320): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I think this should be replaced with Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). Its presence just complicates checking for dab pages.   Notified participants of WikiProject Names --- Jura 12:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Q28065731Edit

duplicated disambiguation page (Q28065731): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Not sure what it adds. Complicates check for disambiguation. Use Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) instead --- Jura 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Q64640321Edit

community forest management (Q64640321): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lacks definition MisterSynergy (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Q64639286Edit

baseline water stress (Q64639286): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lacks definition MisterSynergy (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @MisterSynergy:, I don't understand, are you saying you can't see the description? It has the description 'the ratio of total water withdrawals relative to the annual available renewable surface water supplies' --John Cummings (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Q62239558Edit

boat clasp (Q62239558): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lacks definition MisterSynergy (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Q61742220Edit

Q61742220: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lacks definition MisterSynergy (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Q60221417Edit

Q60221417: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Patinoire temporaire http://www.ville-embrun.fr/actualites/2018/12/14/patinoire-embrun-ouverte-horaires-tarifs-joint Benoît (discussion) 08:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Keep I see no reason for deletion. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Q55722150Edit

idiophones elastically dislocated (Q55722150): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No structural need BohemianRhapsody (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Q31709442Edit

Mount Awful (Q31709442): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicity to Q31656969, there is only 1 mountain of that name --Podzemnik (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold, has to be fixed on the cebwiki. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 08:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Q55308440Edit

(Q55308440): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a family name --- Jura 11:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65558156Edit

Étienne-David (Q65558156): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Einstein95 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  Keep @Einstein95: it was not empty and used by another item ; nonetheless, I improved this item. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65666034Edit

Q65666034: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

He is a part from Q65666015 and there is not need this separately, I made a mistake --YairMelamed (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Q32108537Edit

Q32108537: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Category in Russian Wikipedia has been deleted. No links. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulk deletion requestEdit

  1. Q65665938 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q65665956 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q65665959 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy David (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65556804Edit

Tommy Weber (Q65556804): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, the only link from commons has been deleted 94rain (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65063716Edit

Samatar Sama (Q65063716): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy --Premeditated (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65684125Edit

Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Gambia/ Jah (Q65684125): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Baustellenseite eines Projekts. --Atamari (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65666032Edit

50s architecture (Q65666032): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Just created to include in Property:P3342 the favourite items of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alec Smithson (Q61700893) AttoRenato (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lexeme:L56014Edit

A-Cash (L56014): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Confused namespace Vesihiisi (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It was probably intended as a Lexeme page, as there is already an item, A-cash (cryptocurrency) (Q65619835). It should probably be "noun", not "Cryptocurrency", but bitcoin (L27519) exists, which is also for a cryptocurrency. Is there a notability guideline for the Lexeme namespace? Peter James (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65619835Edit

A-cash (cryptocurrency) (Q65619835): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This only has a label and description, no statements or sitelinks. Peter James (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q27838083Edit

Attila Kiss (Q27838083): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability not shown. Steak (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65621567Edit

Abhineet Mishra (Q65621567): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No sitelinks, links from other items, identifiers other than social media, or other indication of notability Jamie7687 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65498183Edit

Narges Daramad (Q65498183): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable (no chess title). Steak (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65455720Edit

Schirmer Ampofo-Domfeh Family (Q65455720): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lack of notability and references --- Jura 00:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65680839Edit

Star Goodkid (Q65680839): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No sitelinks --HaeB (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65718465Edit

K!NG EFFEX (Q65718465): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item David (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

More. "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q5674511Edit

Q5674511: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q16045964Edit

Q16045964: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q57980924Edit

Q57980924: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65129713Edit

Q65129713: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q16118445Edit

Q16118445: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q59818443Edit

Q59818443: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q65177089Edit

Q65177089: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q16943273Edit

Q16943273: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Keep Please see Talk:Q16943273. This item is exempted from notability policy. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q60024620Edit

Q60024620: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q31821970Edit

Q31821970: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A blank item "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q59263892Edit

UCL - BFLT: Bibliothèque des arts et des lettres (Q59263892): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doesn't exist anymore. --Waaub (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Q29536861Edit

result of process sequence (Q29536861): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused Swpb (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)