Wikidata:Requests for deletions

(Redirected from Wikidata:RFD)

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

Please use {{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.

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 deletion of the underlying project page 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

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 September 28.

Requests for deletions


~128 open requests for deletions.

Pages tagged with {{Delete}} Edit

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.

Requests Edit

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

Archibald Olive (Q117844136): (1818-1903) husband of Mary Narcissus Spain: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. Together with the two other members of his family. Emu (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep "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." We don't use English Wikipedia notability, all meet the Wikidata notability standard. Findagrave and Familysearch are "serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can be described by "serious and publicly available references." is welcome at Wikidata. Eventually all of Findagrave will be loaded. --RAN (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, that’s not exactly our current understanding of notability that we employ in practice. --Emu (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With accordance to the WD:N criterion 2, I can justify the keeping of the item for his son, John Alexander - that name is listed in the archive. Mr Archibald Olive just lived his life as a farmer, he wasn't either an election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist, we even don't know if he was a respected farmer or not (hopefully he was). A clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity means that we should be sure that mr Olive was known exactly as a farmer professionally, and not just lived at a farm run by someone else. Eventually all of Findagrave will be loaded. - this website works well for those who lived in the English-speaking realm, and even that is not everywhere. It's not very ethical to store the information on random dead people in non-specialized databases, because we don't know if the relatives/descendants agree with it, and if the individuals themselves would be happy to be immortalized if they were alive and had a choice. --Wolverène (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just 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." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. --RAN (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. --Wolverène (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. --RAN (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. --Emu (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N, then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again again: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." If you want to change the policy to make it more like English Wikipedia you can lobby for more restrictions and have us only host "famous" people. You wrote: "no consensus to create an item for every living person." which is correct, because of the amount of work it would take, and we do not have an index of all the people in the world. The largest database of people that we do not host is Findagrave, but that would take years of work, and those are dead people, not living, Archibald Olive died in 1903. For The Peerage, it took a full year to match entries, merge duplicates, and correct errors, which was a fraction of the size of Findagrave. If we were to create an entry for the 7 billion living people in the world at the rate of one a minute, it would take 13,000 years, so no one has plans to do it. --RAN (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I am well aware of the wording of WD:N. As you are well aware, our interpretation of “serious and publicly available references“ generally refers to independent, not user-generated, not predominantly promotional, selective, authentic and organic material. There seems to be not a single piece of information that anybody who is not part of some sort of community project bothered to record anything about Archibald Olive apart from the people who were required to by law or had some sort of personal connection. It’s no good to quote bits and pieces from WD:N and give them the meaning you like to have. --Emu (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What do you mean by "our interpretation", I think you meant to write: "my own interpretation". See: User:Emu/Notability. --RAN (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep per RAN Dsp13 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep at least for a mention in newspaper, which is a public domain resource that can get into Wikisource.--GZWDer (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I admit I didn't notice that the mentions in Memphis Avalanche (Q100277082) and The Tennessean (Q4808006) have been added to the item. There are no permanent URL's to those newspaper articles(?) but they may be a prove of notability, indeed. --Wolverène (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not really newspaper articles, they are (endless) lists of recipients of public funds because of an annual “Fourth of July” claim bill. The mentions read Archibald Olive, of McNairy country, $45.75. and Archibald Olive, McNariy county, $45.47 respectively. Most editors should be able to access those newspapers through The Wikipedia Library. --Emu (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity.
    As the newspapers are indisputably serious sources; this is dispositive of the discussion. The nomination ought be withdrawn. Jack4576 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete, mentioning in the list only gives us his name and the county, all the rest stays unsourced as far as Findagrave is not a reliable source. Андрей Романенко (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reliability is not an issue. Findagrave is a serious and publicly available source, and therefore any entity described within (even if false) qualifies for inclusion as an independent entity Jack4576 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Findagrave is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of Ancestry. It has an error rate comparable to other sources we use. Being crowdsourced and being "reliable", are two different things. See: Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/VIAF errors and Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/LCCN errors for the non-crowdsourced Identifiers we use the most for birth and death dates. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It’s user-generated content, there is no threshold of notability. That’s not a serious source. But we have discussed this many, many times, as you are well aware. --Emu (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, the nominator makes a serious error. The above discussion reflects that they do not understand the Wikidata guideline, and does not appreciate the important policy reasons for it having been drawn as broadly as it has Jack4576 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JUDr. Josef Cupka (Q117283304): Czech trustee in bankruptcy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Gymnicus (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notable per WD:N rule 2. Multiple serious and publicly available references provided. Jklamo (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jklamo Which ones? We generally don’t accept state registries who have to document indiscriminately. --Emu (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not aware of any decision that state registers are not considered serious and publicly available references. Can you link to it for me? Jklamo (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jklamo see User:Emu/Notability#Sources_need_to_be_selective --Emu (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that's your opinion, Emu, but I don't know of consensus. Dsp13 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dsp13 Well, there are links to a two-part discussion involving several users, 4 of them admins, and the discussion does seem to indicate a long standing practice. I don’t know of any similiar discussions with a different result. --Emu (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - I'd taken a quick look without looking at the discussion linked - caught up now. The discussion's second part isolates this question. As I understand the argument, understanding notability this way is: (a) longstanding practice; (b) local consensus (I've not been active in WD community discussion, so don't know how far global consensus is possible, or what it looks like); (c) possibly required by technical limitations. But it's not what N-2 currently says: understanding 'serious' this way seems just weird. If this criterion is wanted, I'd be happier if N-2 was changed to say explicitly 'serious, publicly available and selective'. (I think I'd oppose such a change myself at the moment, but am open to learning more.) Dsp13 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could of course do that. I’m not entirely convinced that such a change in wording would do a lot of good though. See Wikidata talk:Notability#Define_what_a_serious_source_is for some insights about our current understanding of “serious” and about problems that may arise when changing the wording of WD:N --Emu (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete No independent selective coverage --Emu (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete per Emu. Андрей Романенко (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WD:N rule 2. The reasons for deletion provided by User:Emu is reflective of a serious and erroneous understanding of policy Jack4576 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comment would be more poignant if you could kindly elaborate the merits of this astounding claim. --Emu (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your own comment displays your lack of knowledge about policy, as you are citing your own prose as policy instead of relying on the actual policy as written. Further, you make a serious error by not regarding the references pointed to by Jklamo as being dispositive of this nomination discussion. Jack4576 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, if you say so. My “own prose“ cites two discussions that show the understanding of current policy and practice by users with years of experience. But sure, that’s not “actual policy“. Let’s take your word for it, kind user with 92 live edits and an impressive blocking history on en.wp. --Emu (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer to stick with the guidelines as written.
Background discussions by editors, even the discussions of those with years of experience, don't have operative effect unless they are incorporated into a guideline.
The 'current policy' is what is written, not what is contained within those discussions.
The 'current practice' is against policy where those practices conflict with the policy as written.
Here, we have an entity that is identifiable through publicly available sources as per Jklamo. That is all that is required per WD:N. If you disagree, you are free to propose a change to the policy or add additional context to the policy's text. However I suspect such a policy change would be rejected given the deliberately designed wide scope of Wikidata.
Plainly, given the discussion in this thread and in the discussions across other RfDs, your opinion regarding the policy of WD:N is not yet consensus. As it is not consensus, I will, and other users should; continue to oppose it until the position you're claiming is actually adopted as a policy.
Thanks User:Emu Jack4576 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your argument is basically that you have some rare insights into the meaning of WD:N, especially the word “serious”, and that your insights are somehow more valid than what highly experienced users, many of them admins elected by the community, consider to be consensus. Well, okay. --Emu (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually my argument is that my intuitions regarding the meaning of the word ‘serious’ are ordinary, not rare
and additionally, these intuitions are equally as valid and valuable as users with experience or admin status
I give zero weight to somebody’s status as an experienced community member when deciding what the word ‘serious’ means
I especially give zero weight to somebody’s status as an admin when deciding what the word ‘serious’ means
If you want the word ‘serious’ to mean something other than its ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning; then make that policy change
Otherwise please stop asserting that a localised consensus reached at a particular time, during a community discussion with a limited audience, is somehow relevant here
Clearly, based on the discussions on this page, the community consensus regarding the interpretation of WD:N #2 isn’t as robust as you appear to think
If you want to change the meaning of WD:N beyond its ordinary meaning, I invite you to start an RfC and add additional content to the guideline clarifying what the word ‘serious’ means
Your status as an admin does not mean users here should defer to your preferred interpretation as to what the plain and ordinary meaning of WD:N #2 means.
I accord you no authority on this topic beyond that of another ordinary user. Admins do not have special status when deciding what guidelines mean, that is a matter for the community as a whole. Jack4576 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Couple of things:
  • There is no such thing as an ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning of “serious”. If there were, this wouldn’t mean that much for the interpretation of the word in context. That’s not how language or the law works.
  • The RfC process has been broken for a long time. Consensus generally isn’t reached through RfC’s here. This is different to other projects.
  • Consensus on Wikidata is indeed often reached by a very few people or even with some sort of tacit understanding of current practice. This is different to other projects.
  • It is true that the admins have no special “voting power”. But they are chosen by the community to enforce consensus which means that they are by and large trusted to discern this consensus. They might be wrong, sure, we are all volunteers and make mistakes, but this is something to consider, especially if there isn’t just one lone renegade admin on a mission.
  • Discussions on similar items generally are very much alike: There’s Richard (RAN) who has a consistent view of notability that I don’t share but do respect. And there are often those who have created the items or belong to some project or have a special interest in similar items.
  • After all, I don’t get it. If somebody is an accomplished professional, it’s not that hard to get some minor article in the local paper. That’s enough for notability. --Emu (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're wrong about that. The 'plain meaning' of words is a well established concept in law. Plain meaning incorporates and includes context. Google 'plain meaning' on Google Scholar if you wish, you'll find that it is extremely well established concept. All words under this conceptual framework have a 'plain meaning', including the word 'serious'.
  • The RfC process being 'broken' (in your view, personally I think its fine) is not a reason to start pretending we have made changes to policies, that we haven't actually made
  • WikiData does not have a different approach to 'consensus' as other projects. Consensus is always reached by the community as a whole, across all of the projects, including this one. What you're claiming here is a pretty remarkable claim, and I've seen no indication from the Wikimedia foundation that WikiData is exceptional when it comes to community consensus based governance.
  • Admins are chosen by the community to enforce consensus that is established by the community, they do not have the power to override community consensus to put forward their own views. Nor to they have the power to assert a false consensus, nor do they have the power to assert that a localised consensus has the power to override the plain meaning of guidelines as they are written.
  • My views on notability are consistent with RAN's.
  • "If somebody is an accomplished professional, it’s not that hard to get some minor article in the local paper. That’s enough for notability." Yes, that is of course the case. However, the hypothetical you are proposing here is much much higher of a bar than the actual wording of WD:N #2.
Jack4576 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hold a law degree (although not in Common Law), I think you can safely assume that I know what “plain meaning“ is.
The rest of your reasoning shows a misunderstanding of how Wikidata works: Yes, consensus is reached by the community, no, the Foundation doesn’t regulate how this consensus is reached. It is generally not done by RfC on Wikidata. What is indeed special to Wikidata (if you compare it to en.wp or de.wp) is that much of daily operations isn’t codified or current practice has been different to what guidelines suggest for many years. It would certainly be better if guidelines reflected current practice but it often doesn’t. Maybe that’s what confuses you.
Your whole point hinges on the notion that you and Richard somehow know best how to interpret the word “serious” and that the rest of the community somehow is on your side but has been strangely silent on the issue for many years of administrative overreach. Could be. Not so sure what happens to that theory once you apply Ockham’s razor. --Emu (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that you have a law degree I am puzzled then by your statement that; 'There is no such thing as an ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning of “serious”'. That's a seriously contestable claim, and one that scholars have argued about for years. Nevermind though, lets not get bogged down in a debate about the philosophy of language and interpretation. (Although I'd highly recommend to you the work of Brian Slocum if this is of interest to you)
Regardless, I do think it is relatively robust and defensible position to take a plain-meaning approach when applying Wikidata's guidelines. To do otherwise when interpreting the language there as expressed risks straining the words as if their meaning somehow incorporates years of background discussion. Plainly I disagree with that being how Wikimedia's sites operate, and again, I haven't any reason why WikiData should be treated differently aside from your assertions above to the contrary.
If the guidelines and current practice are in conflict, then the guidelines win out. That is my position.
Another way I would articulate my position on this issue is; 'how do I know the meaning of the word serious? I know it when I see it.'
"Your whole point hinges on the notion that you and Richard somehow know best how to interpret the word “serious” and that the rest of the community somehow is on your side"
This is not at all my position. My point is that we are ordinary members of the community, competent in the English language; and are qualified to express our reasonably held position as to how the guidance material should be applied as written. Other members of the community, including yourself, are also entitled to your reasonably held positions as to how the guidance material should be applied. If you want to assert a special interpretation of the word 'serious' that goes beyond its ordinary plain meaning, then by all means, obtain a change to the guidelines. I will follow whatever the text is.
Until that occurs I will continue to apply the guidelines on their face, as they are written. I do think it is more than fair to apply the word 'serious' as both Richard and I have done so above, and there are policy benefits to doing so. If you have a different view, you are entitled to it. This is the nature of consensus. Not every discussion or disagreement in consensus-based forums are able reach resolution; impasses do occasionally occur. As you'd know as a lawyer, such conflicts in the interpretation of language are often an inevitable part of any decision making process with multiple potential outcomes.
If you want Wikidata to follow the positions that "state registers are not considered serious and publicly available references", or that social media profiles are never serious references for their subjects, then by all means add that policy position to the guidance. Until that happens though the only relevant factor I will have in mind when applying WD:N #2 will be the guidance provided by the words as articulated. This is not a claim to 'special knowledge', this is merely a claim that as a competent speaker of the English language; I am confident that I have a strong enough intuitive grasp of the meaning of the word 'serious' so as to be able to productively contribute to these discussions. In case it assists you in understanding my position, my views on language and definitional issues are highly influenced by Wittgenstein.
I think Richard's position on how the guidelines work is a robust position, and my intention is to keep following Richard's approach whilst participating here whilst contributing as constructively and productively as possible. Jack4576 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be absolutely clear, my position on the meaning of the word 'serious' is:
  • "I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that's okay"
Jack4576 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a lot of text that basically boils down to: “Yeah but I don’t want to know how Wikidata works because it should work the way I think it should. Also I like my interpretation of words better.“ Is that how you earned your blocks on en.wp? Also, how Wittgenstein of all people would help you defending this position is beyond me, especially if you consider his PI (PU) positions. --Emu (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a complete misrepresentation of my position, and its frankly as disconcerting as it is concerning that as an administrator you would read my comment and then misrepresent my position in that way. Admins should be above straw-man arguments. I am clearly not saying the what you've written above in quotes.
Wittgenstein is relevant in that you keep pointing to special rules/cases to elaborate upon the true meaning of the word 'serious' as it is applied at Wikidata. This is fallacious for similar reasons that Wittgenstein criticizes the practice of attempting to divine the meaning of words through definition.
My position is that the word 'serious' has its plain and ordinary meaning defined by its general usage across the English language. I have a sufficient command of the English language to interpret and apply the word 'serious' as it appears in WD:N. I'm not going to be deferring to your assertion that I should qualify this interpretation of the word 'serious' by reading words into the guideline that aren't actually there in the policy.
I'm happy, additionally, to follow clear consensus. What you've pointed to really isn't that. The discussions you've got listed on your userpage are questionable in whether they actually represent consensus. As another user noted above: "I understand that's your opinion, Emu, but I don't know of consensus." Jack4576 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that users including: myself, Granpar, RAN, as well as others in this thread all collectively disagree the view that 'sources must be selective'; I'd say its fairly clear that the site lacks consensus on this issue. If you want a formal resolution of this, open an RfC or change the policy.
I would have thought it obviously the case that it is not best practice to point to singular discussions as if they're somehow representative of a consensus among the Wikidata community at large. Most of us didn't see that discussion, and are unable to contribute at this point because it's been archived.
I'm going to open an RfC on this. Jack4576 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep We have make a distinction between showing someone exists versus "do we want to upload an entire directory with a bot". --RAN (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Studios film universes (Q101099318): fictional universes of the eponymous film series: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not really an established universe. There are some cameos, but not much interaction between properties (barring some specific, separate universes like Q7894222. --(Oinkers42) (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep This is a category of other universes. --RAN (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but the universe itself does not exist, and it being used as a universe in itself. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade We could use your input as creator. Is there outside coverage of this being a shared universe? --Emu (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made this item specifically to connect different Walt Disney Animation Sutiods film universes to each other through P361. Trade (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade Yeah, I understand that, but is there a connection apart from those universes all being produced by Disney? And if so, is there a source that says so? --Emu (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Trade (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: per reasons provided by RAN Jack4576 (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete For sure there's Disney movies that contain fictional universes, but calling them "universe of Disney movie X" or whatever is kind of nonsensical. Like item lists "Aladdin universe", but the movie takes place in the fictional Arabian city of Agrabah. Sure, it's a fictional city, but "universe"? No. Whereas the Great Mouse Detective, which is also on the list, takes place in late 1800s London. Again, that's not a "universe." Really, this whole thing is an exercise in taking the titles of random Disney movies, putting the word "universe" at the end, and calling it a "Disney universe." Which is clearly just non-sensical, unverifiable, and not what Wikidata exits for. What's next, a list of "Walt Disney Animation Studios film universe foods" that lists spaghetti, among other real world dishes, because of that one scene in Lady and the Tramp? Come on. It's at least an exercise in pointless minutia if nothing else. Although again, I don't think its in line with the purpose of Wikidata. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntopia Alpina-related items Edit

Q118214923 Edit

Strassen in den Alpen: Wie viele braucht es? (Q118214923): article by Köbi Gantenbein published in Syntopia Alpina (2023): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Gymnicus (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q118214928 Edit

Alpines Bauhandwerk: Altes und neues Wissen vereinen (Q118214928): article by Köbi Gantenbein published in Syntopia Alpina (2023): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Gymnicus (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntopia Alpina: discussion Edit

  • @ZHBEScience, @Mfchris84 zur Info --Emu (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Gymnicus: what is the reason for an erratic choice to delete two articles (see also Alpines Bauhandwerk: Altes und neues Wissen vereinen (Q118214928) of the online magazine Syntopia Alpina (Q112206291)? All article items are well formed, each one has linked author items. To build useful and complete insights about (academic) publications and to allow applications like scholia to be worthful, such items fullfills totally a structural need. They are also part of broader scientific output of University of Lucerne (Q673308). Mfchris84 (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep Seems to be a notable publication with at least most authors being notable on their own. So we should probably treat these items akin to journal articles and keep them. --Emu (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Emu: I don't see it that way. Because the "scientific identifiers" such as the DOI are clearly missing. I'm opposed to keeping anything just because someone says it's scientific. --Gymnicus (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Gymnicus The journal isn’t supposed to be “scientific” (i. e. an academic journal), it’s part of popular science. This doesn’t mean that the items can’t be notable. The publication itself is notable, the publisher is notable, publicly funded and linked to a prestigious university. Most authors of articles are notable on their own. I think we can rule out spam here. --Emu (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Emu: Sorry, but that sounds like a further softening of the notability criteria to me. And of course only in the "scientific" area. In all other areas much heavier artillery is brought out, to put it a little in "military" language. --Gymnicus (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don’t think this is true. We are generally pretty relaxed about notability if abuse isn’t the issue. But you are entitled to your opinion. --Emu (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, doi is a permanent identifier for a digital object but doesn't indicate whether an output is scientific, popular or whatever or not. A PID can't create notability. Mfchris84 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billy Jack Hebrew (Q75472434): Fiat family pretender: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The only reference is The Peerage, where the source is an anonymous email. was also provided as a reference (in an edit summary), but is only what is claimed by the plaintiffs and I couldn't find anything else about the case. Notable? Peter James (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The family connection seems to be spurious to say the least. However, if this is indeed supposed to be the same person as IMDB nm1278301, there was quite some coverage in the yellow press in connection with Kristen Stewart back in 2012. He is listed as one of the producers of Welcome to the Rileys (Q1156495). --Emu (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep This was a fraud case where an ordinary person claimed to be from that family. There are several references to the fraud. It is well referenced. Maybe it would be better to put the entry under "Billy Jack Hebrew".--RAN (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carolynne Hight-Hebrew (Q75472436): Peerage person ID=163289: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The only reference is The Peerage, where the source is an anonymous email. Notable? Peter James (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep This was a fraud case where a person from the Hebrew family claimed membership in the family that owns Fiat and defrauded investors. There are several references to the fraud. It is well referenced. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jarry Falls (Q109376609): A waterfall attraction centre in Borno state.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? --Dorades (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, I've been improving some hundreds of thousands of items I don't want others to delete and my plan is to keep doing so, so I've put your suggestions in practice for years.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked to see if I could find any other information on this waterfall. Instead what I found were lots of references to Jhari Falls (Q114712215) (aka Jerry Falls) in India. Looking at the photo for Jarry Falls, Nigeria [1], it looks very similar to those for Jhari Falls, India (e.g. file:Jhari_Falls_2k22.jpg, [2], [3]). Am I crazy? Bovlb (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are definitely right about the picture. I think this could be a mistake by the person who created the website but I don't see how we should find out about the correct name and location of the waterfall in Borno. --Dorades (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found coordinates for Jaffi Waterfalls in a scientific publication ( However, the coordinates given in the article (10°30'11" N 11°50'36" E from p. 4) show a place directly beside a road in the middle of a town. Is my interpretation of the coordinates correct? --Dorades (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your interpretation appears correct. You'd expect coordinates given to the arc-second to be within about 100 feet. The source omits the arc-second symbol but, even if these were actually decimal arc-minutes, it wouldn't be far away. Bovlb (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Boer Goat (Q113122591): animal husbandry book: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Advertisement Wutsje 23:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep per Notability-2. (Not my personal reading choice, but if the Tehran Times is to believed, it sounds potentially as absorbing as Whiffle's The Care of the Pig was for the fictional Lord Emsworth.) Dsp13 (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk deletion request regarding PharmaSalud Edit

  1. Q109425927 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q108627317 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q108634536 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q108653732 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q108444753 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q108655176 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk deletion request Edit

  1. Q110877624 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q110665657 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q110934978 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

The latter two are not notable. Q110877624 demonstrates a strange variety of expertise: a studied psychologist (Orcid), working as a technician (Loop), publishing papers on geology (Loop), being an "OTC Export Order Specialist" (LinkedIn) and baking pizza (Instagram). Dorades (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Tommaso Colonna (Q110877624) I think the external links conflate two people called Tommaso Colonna: (1) a psychologist (Orcid) and OTC Export Order Specialist" (LinkedIn); (2) a technician, geologist (Loop) and pizza baker (Instagram) who would have LinkedIn id tommaso-colonna-a470498 and who is an author on e.g. Multivariate Analysis Applied to Aquifer Hydrogeochemical Evaluation: A Case Study in the Coastal Significant Subterranean Water Body between “Cecina River and San Vincenzo”, Tuscany (Italy) (Q110541814). The second and perhaps the first look notable once the item is split. Dsp13 (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly makes the later two non-notable?StarTrekker (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sitelinks (WD:N #1); no serious and publicly available references (WD:N #2), all the IDs are user-generated content. They are linked together with Tommaso Colonna (Q110877624) and Peter Lizzaro (Q110934978)/Lucía Morales Villa (Q110665657) respectively, therefore I have nominated all three together. In case you are asking because of the stated IDs for Loop, ORCID or Publons: there are zero publications listed on the profiles for both of them. --Dorades (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you for the explanation.StarTrekker (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reap Corporation (Q111204681): Vietnamese entertainment company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Contains false information about the number of followers on social media services. --Mạnh An (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

anti-jewish (Q120439954): person who for various reasons is or acts against Jews for the mere fact of being: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I don’t understand the meaning of this item. How is this an occupation? Why do the labels seem to be adjectives when the item is supposed to describe people (i.e. nouns)? How is an “anti-jewish” the opposite of (P461) of Jewish people (Q7325)? It’s unclear to me how this item could be used in a meaningful way. --Emu (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Compare with antisemite (Q15954665) and antisemitism (Q22649). CC @Cruzate1492 . Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weird. At least we only have 11 items with occupation (P106)antisemite (Q15954665). The opposite of (P461) statement and a lot of the further modeling doesn’t make a lot of sense there either. --Emu (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete Bunch of nonsense--Trade (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep well-established concept Jack4576 (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete or  Merge as reduntant to antisemite (Q15954665). --Wolverène (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete or  Merge per Wolverène. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minecraft YouTuber (Q120122399): digital creator who creates video content related to the game Minecraft: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merge with Q17125263 Trade (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tomodachi94 (talk) -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC) SWinxy (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) BEANS X2 (talk) Serilly (talk) Notified participants of WikiProject Minecraft as this is within their scope. —Tomodachi94 (he/him · talk) 19:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I support this item being deleted, but maybe we should migrate all humans with this item to have field of work (P101) set to 'Minecraft YouTube' or similar? —Tomodachi94 (he/him · talk) 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep Minecraft YouTuber is a pretty popular descriptor for people online. Its fandom is also on Wikidata MCYTTWT (Q106626500), and it has a category on English and Farsi Wikipedia. There are other types of YouTubers as well. I added a Know Your Meme ID. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minecraft YouTuber is weirdly a distinct occupation, similarly to how beauty YouTuber (Q23680154) is a distinct occupation, so I'm leaning keep. SWinxy (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We dont need a seperate item for every single video game popular among YouTubers Trade (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep We don’t. But “Minecraft YouTuber“ is hardly yet another random genre, there’s like a gazillion articles in the German and English language press alone talking specifically about “Minecraft YouTubers“ (in various spelling variants). That’s WD:N #2 notability. --Emu (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: The nominator makes a serious error. Minecraft YouTuber is a distinct conceptual entity mentioned in numerous places at varying levels of prominence throughout the internet. Jack4576 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep; appears to be specifically linked from 81 items, so I think it's reasonable to keep as distinct. Jamie7687 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I'm skeptical that there has to be a "XYZ YouTuber" for every possible genre of YouTube video. I agree with Tomodachi94's proposal to move to using field of work or similar property (genre?) to indicate the primary topic of their videos. That is a better model. -- William Graham (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bee Bee Automotive (Q120484081): British car manufacturer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Bogus item created by known vandal Special:Permalink/1932557235. Gikü (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same issue:
Gikü (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link comes from another item in the same list. Gikü (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding Q120484304 – same shtick, different IP address. Gikü (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tonggong seems to exist ( but I'm unsure of the reliability of those sources or if they are useful for notability) Bee-Bee Automotive and the Bee-Bee XS exist and the Commons category is not empty but the company is French, not British ( Dida (Q120484237) is a given name (and could be linked from other Wikidata items for people with this given name), not sure the others are. Peter James (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk deletion request of part of Orsanmichele Church Edit

Part of Orsanmichele (Q860816) created by @Westmorelandk24. No source, not notable feature. Fralambert (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oursana, since they made me discover the first part. Fralambert (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Withdrawn Thank you and will try to make it notable--Oursana (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure? You are the one who first ask the deletion of Central Pier of Orsanmichele (Q116844675). I think that Tabernacle of Orsanmichele (Q116844464) could be nobable, but the other seem empty at best. Fralambert (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glat Entertainment Edit

All of these entries were made to promote the work of the Tavera family; a family of so-called entrepreneurs and writers that get help from acquaintances that include politicians and actors in Mexico to make their vanity projects. Regardless of this dubious way to succeed, they used the Wikimedia projects to upload multiple production photos of their movies, articles in various Wikipedias for those movies and their actors and linking to web pages so that people would know their work, which is mostly unknown even in Mexico, especially one of the books they tried to promote up to the point of creating out of the blue an English title for it in the entry even though there's no proof that such book has ever been published in English (see Q115952341). The notability was challenged and all of their eswiki pages were deleted; the main account, Pedro Renteria, was globally blocked after being found that they used sockpuppets in other projects. All of these entries have the names of various members of the Tavera family and their production company, Glat Entertainment. Unfortunately, there are some entries that are part of this promotional campaign which I cannot include in this request due to being linked to pages in the Welsh Wikipedia, which they also used to promote their work (entries Q64863450, Q64996086, Q64996103, Q89678678).. MexTDT (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk deletion request Edit

  1. Q108304765 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q108304766 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q106583315 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q114006763 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emilio Wolf-Ferrari (Q102288846): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non existing person Feraspe (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Feraspe There is an external identifier. Is there any reason to doubt the Archivio Storico Ricordi (Q3621644)? --Emu (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I collaborate with Archivio Storico Ricordi and am working on their database. We are in the process of fixing errors on both our local db and Wikidata. Feraspe (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you prefer, we can hold on cancelling the entry on Wikidata until we do the same on our website (it might take a while). Feraspe (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Feraspe I think that would be the better order of events. But even without the Archivio Storico Ricordi, the person in question might still be notable, as there are other sources about him – is he maybe one of the five sons of August Wolf (Q27505171) and Emilia Ferrari (Q120864889)? --Emu (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't think so, because in that publication (which was published by Ricordi, by the way) he's called the "ben noto maestro" (well-known maestro), something that would never be the case for an otherwise unknown Emilio Wolf-Ferrari. It's clearly a typo (I don't see any other document quoting such a person). Feraspe (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thanks for your explanation. Yeah, then we should probably  Delete this item once Ricordi revokes the external identifier. --Emu (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He did exist, the Archivio Storico ricordi preserves one of his letters: [4] LutiV (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johann Schranz (Q21459945): American painter (1794-1882): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unclear meaning. Created for a now retracted Art UK artist ID (P1367) identifier. Maybe originally a bad duplicate of Giovanni Schranz (Q43136629) but now completely conflated with the description “American painter”. Delete as conflation. --Emu (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getty/ULAN knows three people:
The three may be the same person, Schranz seemingly had a German name, was born in Spain (well, Menorca anyway) and worked in Malta so Italian and English first names seem to fit. No idea where “American” fits in here. But I’m not an expert for the arts. --Emu (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We should probably keep until the other two Identifiers are withdrawn. My contact at VIAF retired, and there have been no corrections via Wiki since then. Perhaps we should make it an instance of "permanent conflation" until the other Identifiers are withdrawn. --RAN (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I remember similar items being deleted because it isn’t a really good idea to keep conflated items just because some other project creates them. --Emu (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scooby-Doo location (Q111908433): location appearing in the Scooby-Doo universe: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merge with Q3895768 Trade (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can’t merge because this is clearly a different concept. But I somehow doubt that this item is notable. --Emu (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how about i switch it's uses out with Q3895768. Would you support deletion then? @Emu: --Trade (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade I guess? Those type of items are often problematic, see our discussion at #Q101099318. Might be a good idea to come up with some clarification of WD:N for similar artwork-related “in universe items”. --Emu (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Those type of items are often problematic" Please elaborate? Unsure what you are refering to Trade (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, for starters they are often under-sourced and thus relying heavily on the structural need clause which is arguably open to interpretation. --Emu (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dunno, they seem to be doing fine with sourcing to me Trade (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katharina Bauer (Q116189710): (1882-1917): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Gymnicus (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by Daniel Baránek who is generally not known to create items without notability – there’s probably some context that’s not on the item at the moment? --Emu (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually try to import only people for whom at least two independent sources are available (unless significance is absolutely obvious from just one source). But of course it could happen that I accidentally imported an insignificant person, which is probably the case here, because I could not find anything else for this person. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep While the person isn't Wikipedia notable, they meet the requirement to be included in Wikidata. BillionGraves is a reliable and public source. I imagine in the future we will index all of Findagrave. --RAN (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geraldo de Aquino (Q10289120): Brazilian journalist (1912-1984): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I believe it fails WD:N. Kacamata (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kacamata Isn’t he the founder of Q10366081? That would probably imply (at least) WD:N #3 notability (“structural need“). --Emu (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu According to this article in the pt.WP and this source, the radio station was founded in 1959, and it was acquired by the Fundação Cristã-Espírita Cultural Paulo de Tarso (Paulo de Tarso Cultural Spiritist Christian Foundation) in 1971. Gerardo Aquino is actually founder of this Foundation and not of the radio station. Kacamata (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but still. Looks notable to me. --Emu (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu If it's notable per WD just keep it. I sourced his birthdate and place. Kacamata (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kacamata Thank you, I think we can indeed  Keep this, but I’ll leave this decision to another admin. Sorry to be annoying, I’m not too familiar with Brazil. --Emu (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu Don't worry. You are not being annoying. I'm still learning, and sometimes I nominate items I believe fails WD:N, but they don't. Kacamata (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christine Sandler (Q115947559): Former Head of Sales & Digital Marketing - Fidelity Digital Assets: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Germartin1 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any specific reasons to keep this (and Crypto Bahamas 2022 (Q115947158) as well)? --Wolverène (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She fulfills notability, and the conference was attended by many well-known people such as SBF, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton Germartin1 (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George Nellist (Q115493671): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Germartin1 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sylheti Wikipedia (Q118646488): Sylheti-language edition of Wikipedia in Incubator: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Not a separate Wikipedia site. Still in incubator wiki Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q65313075: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Eihel (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold has sitelink --Emu (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but how did you figure out it is a spam page? The Albanian article exists since 2018, looks like if article for the subject were created in some another wiki it would be deleted as not notable, but if it's okay for the sqWP and they are not eager to delete that for more than a month, then should we really care? May it all remain as is, IMHO. --Wolverène (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chess (Q114832719): Reversi video game: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A Reversi game named Chess with no sources other than Wikidata derived ones. Matthias M. (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a way, this is original research: I personally observed that Q114832719 is #18 on Q114810654, that it had no wikidata entry and so I created it. The "source" would be the Q114810654 console itself, which I do understand might not be acceptable enough. But how to act in those cases? I'll be happy to follow whichever guidelines you might point me at in order to avoid this deletion. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

game characters in Minecraft (Q26954987): class of fictional entities: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Redundant. Use Q95074 instead Trade (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete I removed its uses on character items. See also discussion at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_universes#character_from_a_certain_fictional_universe - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freelance Media (Q121337666): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep ACMI ID (P7003) seems to be a serious source. Pxxlhxslxn has pledged on their talk page that their items will be improved upon in the future. --Emu (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daka Hill Kano (Q110753143): A hill in Kano: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the description of the picture on Commons, this is a duplicate of Dalla Hill (Q5211094) --Emu (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we assume that "Daka" is just a typo then? Or could it also be a spelling variant or an alternative name? --Dorades (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the description of the image reads The children are climbing the Dala hill without any further comment so I would assume a typo. But then again, I have no idea. Ideally, somebody fron Nigeria would weigh in. --Emu (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poju Oyemade (Q113502322): Nigerian Pastor and Televangelist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I missing something? There’s quite some coverage on Google News. --Emu (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not search for, the item just appears to be quite vacant and without any sources. --Dorades (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dorades: Does Wikidata not have a standard of WP:BEFORE?StarTrekker (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know of such a policy. If I overlooked something, I'm happy to adopt my edits accordingly. --Dorades (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On English Wikipedia WP:BEFORE refers to actions one can take before putting something up for deletion, mainly searching for information and double checking. From what I can gather Wikidata does not seem to have the same system, but I think its a pretty good thing to do.StarTrekker (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StarTrekker There are those who advocate for the exact opposite: Shifting the burden of proof onto the item’s creator, i. e. deleting anything that doesn’t have references that are proof of notability. Given that it only takes seconds to create an item on Wikidata and it sometimes takes hours to make sense of such items, this idea could have some merit. --Emu (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu I have always been more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, so I'm not bound to support such a reform on Wikipedia or Wikidata, but if it was to be introduced on Wikidata I would propose that Wikidata started to demand people create an account to create items (like on English Wikipedia) which would reduce careless item creation and that there were always notifications to item creators.StarTrekker (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t know. It’s single purpose accounts that create the most work for me as an admin. --Emu (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu Fair, I'm not an admin so I can't relate to the kind of issues you have to deal with.StarTrekker (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erfan Nouraee (Q121352105): Iranian inventor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wikidata:Notability Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Won a bronze price from the Duke of Edinburgh's International Award in 2022[5]. Fralambert (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feisworld Media (Q115108651): Media company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? — Haseeb (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete along with linking item for founder Fei Wu (Q118592495). Jamie7687 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Broughton (Q15080841): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Became a conflation between John Broughton (Q121411533): English clergyman and philosopher (1670s-1720) and John Broughton (Q121411387): author of 'Wikipedia: The Missing Manual' some time around 2015. I split the entries, please have another look and then delete. Thank you! --Emu (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support as properly split and otherwise not easily disentangled. Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Network Of Civil Society Organizations Of Nigeria (Q106640882): Non Governmental Organization: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? The organisation is not referred to in the linked article ( Dorades (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony Jennings (Q117805756): Filipino actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not relevant Madamebiblio (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For it to be notable per WD:N §3 there should be incoming links, this item had only outgoing links. Spanish wiki seems also to not be subscribed, it shows no pages when I click on it. I would delete this. Infrastruktur (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emma Cots Segú (Q113817212): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dorades I created this item when I made the cawiki article for Guim Costa i Calsamiglia (Q93071828), her unmarried partner (P451). I disagree with deletion because it will poored Guim Costa infobox article in cawiki. I don't know how much notable she is, but her number of claims are greater than thousands of notable people's spouses or childs have. So, may be someday, an editor starts an article about Emma Cots and upgrade the present information. Thanks Amadalvarez (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of claims does not really say a lot, can you provide references for them? --Dorades (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll find references. In any case, I'm not defending her notability, I'm defending the consistency of the information in the database. If someone else item (in this case, Guim Costa) has one information that must be an entity, we must to create it, doesn't matter notability of third person. If you only accept notable people, we only will have in WD notable person married with notable person and with notable childs. It make no sense ! Amadalvarez (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it does not matter what or who I think should have an item in Wikidata, but what the guidelines say. As far as I know, being the wife/husband, child or relative of a notable person usually does not make those notable themselves. According to the guidelines, it's not a problem if there are serious and publicly available references (WD:N). --Dorades (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the immediate family, especially the spouse, generally is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. Infobox usage is another concern.
However and that’s a reason to  Delete in the current state: The connection is completely unsourced which is very worrying, both because of the constraints of unmarried partner (P451) and because of WD:BLP. All statements about ECS are unsourced too. Amadalvarez you might want to fix this ASAP – if possible. A Google search indicates that this might not be that easy. --Emu (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I'll look for references. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rester jeune (Q115669196): Personalized Rester Jeune program, based on movement, nutrition and well-being after 50.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulk deletion request: video games owned by Stanford University Libraries Edit

These entities all represent specific copies of video games held in a research collection at Stanford, not the video games in the abstract. While Historical game collection, circa 1982-2009 (Q61055165) certainly exists and I'm not disputing its notability, the specific objects in that collection aren't individually notable, and having them around makes it more difficult to find entities for the actual games. Omphalographer (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kenneth White (Q59830391): web developer from the United States: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability requirements --Slasher-fun (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q93986663: article published in 1979: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item is a whole journal, not the articles inside that volume and number of the journal. --Romano1920 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two links in the item, the first one is bloken, and the second one shows some article in Spanish (Situación actual de la población indigena). Could you please explain more detailedly? --Wolverène (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the page numbers there are correct (, it seems to be an issue of a journal, not one article. Page numbers are 211-418, so it would include Q121529787 (217-337) Q121529788 (339-369), Q121529789 (371-380), Q121529790 (381-400), Q121529791 (401-418), although there is also Q121529792 (419-423) in the same issue. Peter James (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

François Py (Q121509004): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails notability Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Quite some (local) coverage, no sign of promotion, does seem notable to me. --Emu (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@emu: The value of the described at URL (P973) statement, which is also being used as source for date of death results in a 404 for me. When I search for him, I only find people with colliding names, not him. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange. I can access the page without problems. --Emu (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eterno (Q121410319): Italian Actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Clearly not notable biographic entry Melos (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clarification: The linked item is a single from the same person, that is probably not notable too. --Sannita - not just another sysop 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lil Vinicinho (Q120994197): Brazilian digital creator: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elham Jalali (Q118113288): physician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohammad Baydoun (Q121563238): entrepreneur: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pouya Vasegh Maleki (Q121536783): Iranian entrepreneur: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q21809313: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted on eswiki and cawiki per notability Brunnaiz (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digital Vocano (Q121676908): a private limited company in Zimbabwe that is primarily an internet domain registrar and web hosting company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam; Wikinews link that wouldn't be able to represent this item anyway, can be removed -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Looks like spam to me Jamie7687 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Praça das Flores (Q86728870): square in Nova Petrópolis, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty; probably related to a square in Nova Petrópolis (Q983710), Brazil. --Wolverène (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esprit Dog (Q121593565): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not seem to be notable, created by SPA, likely self promotion. Lymantria (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Fathers Funeral (Q72086882): AMAA nominated Cameroun documentary film: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julfikar Ali Manik (Q121769774): Bangladeshi journalist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails WD:N Rockpeterson (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep seems notable to me. —Yahya (talkcontribs.) 18:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mars Ray (Q121761997): music group: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails WD:N Rockpeterson (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fais Umer (Q27244475): Indian film screenwriter: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --2804:14D:BAA0:93EC:4015:D5E4:EB01:A35D 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hsevras Edrok (Q121433834): Indian Artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? —Yahya (talkcontribs.) 14:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Officially credited on various labels like Zee Music, Voilà! Digi, Songfest India and more
Notable works include -
Producer of this song on Voilà! Digi with 29M views on YT and 45M plays on streaming platforms -
Mixing and Mastering Engineer of this song on Zee Music with 616K plays on YT and 2M on streaming platforms - HsevrasEdrok (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Keep The sources pointed to above are sufficient to qualify per WD:N #2 Jack4576 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ngwo waterfall (Q99476901): waterfalls in Nigeria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep References identified and added Jack4576 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arinta waterfalls (Q99476579): waterfalls in Nigeria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep References identified and added Jack4576 (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ubacle Group (Q121464763): Ubacle Group is an Energy Company.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Promotional, not notable Lymantria (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep The source is sufficient to establish existence. WD:N #2 is met. Jack4576 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link shows a press release, hence written by or on behalf of the Ubacle Group themselves. That should not count as a serious (and independent) source. --Lymantria (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Q11076908: Wikimedia disambiguation page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q7940934 is for an identical subject and already has most of the same information, except for the Spanish and Catalan wikilinks. I tried merging, but it's too complicated and time-consuming for me to figure out on my own. --Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andrew Sheedy That would contradict Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/03#Survey_for_generating_rules_regarding_items_with_disambiguation_pages, wouldn’t it? --Emu (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Emu: Sorry, it's not obvious to me how so... Wikidata isn't my thing, so you'll have to excuse my extreme ignorance. Both items I mentioned are for the "Voluntarism" disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. Why wouldn't they be considered the same thing? I initially thought there was no equivalent page on English Wikipedia, until I found it independently. I tried to add an interwiki link and found myself embroiled in Wikidata complexity, which is a bit beyond me and I don't have time to figure out right now. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy I’m not an expert either but as a general rule, Wikimedia disambiguation page are only identical in Wikidata if their name are the same character by character, see Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages/guidelines. --Emu (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both pages are for "Voluntarism". Both pages list "Volontarisme" as the French equivalent. They're identical, except that one page has translations for Spanish and Catalan, and the other has translations for other languages. So they don't link to each other in Wikipedia, but they are for the exact same thing: "Voluntarism". No difference in spelling whatsoever. One page is called "Voluntarism" and the other just lists "Voluntarism" under the title. Currently, it's impossible to identify the English label at Q11076908, because it's already used at Q7940934, which means neither page can ever be complete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carnivore Style (Q121493568): American meat-centric resource company based in Jacksonville, Florida: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Incoherently represented BrokenSegue (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Non-notable and promotional. Jamie7687 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: For the context - Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2023/08#restoration of a deleted item Q121493568. --Wolverène (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carnivorestyle-cs Can you made this item notable? Or it will be deleted again. Fralambert (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Winston Jones (Q20653673): American musician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --2605:B100:12D:C5E7:E4F6:85B:4942:5C85 14:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Mori (Q106044767): Morteza Siahkali Moradi: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability --HeminKurdistan (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew Lush (Q56255818): Youtube celebrity: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable "internet celebrity". No sitelinks or internal links. The only reference and ID is Famous Birthdays (Q54958736), which is entirely unreliable and doesnt't imply notability. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:2F4:6FFF:FE72:D65F 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment For better or worse, has been covered in Vanity Fair(.com), which some would call a serious source. Added Freebase ID (P646) for more context. Jamie7687 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tish Simmonds (Q56234897): Comedian: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails the notability criteria. No sitelinks, internal links or references. External IDs are website accounts. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:2F4:6FFF:FE72:D65F 19:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment I think this is Tristan Simmonds, whose transition has been covered by E! News [6] and Daily Mail [7]. Verified accounts on Instagram and TikTok, the latter with 1.3M followers [8] Jamie7687 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorsha Morava (Q56062791): American YouTuber: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails notability criteria. No sitelinks, internal links, external IDs or references. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:2F4:6FFF:FE72:D65F 19:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Non-verified social media with low-5-figure follower numbers. The most serious coverage I can find is in Jezebel [9] and Daily Mail [10]. Jamie7687 (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RepaNation Edit

RepaNation ( talk  · contribs  · logs ) is the username of the Cuban conglomerate, RepaNation Network,[11] which represents, manages, produces and distributes the music of the artists for which all the entries have been created. They are also the owners of RaggaMorffa Editorial.[12] All of them have little to no notability and the advertisement is evident. MexTDT (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daware (Q121816357): web traffic acquisition agency: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? — Haseeb (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Along with Dorian Hermosa (Q121885898). --Dorades (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ikas (Q121746036): e-commerce company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? — Haseeb (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you marking information as "notable" as spam? Do you have any information about the related company? KisiOlus (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

allstarsinternational (Q121913638): Service: Non denominational christian church, prophetic.., prayer, word and deliverance ministry: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Delete Non-notable, promotional, and a mess of bad statements. References are all English Wikipedia (Q328), but I doubt enwiki refers to this church at all. Jamie7687 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've found a reference that suggests this passes WD:N
Promotional / bad statement issues should be resolved through fixing the entry Jack4576 (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That page is by its own admission “platform which helps small businesses grow by allowing our members to promote themselves using effective tools and features on the Chamber website”. That’s not a serious source per WD:N. --Emu (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps not. Although I think its arguable. This source doesn't appear to be joke, and appears to be genuine evidence that this subject is an entity per WD:N. In my view it is therefore sufficiently serious.
Additionally, there is this reference to suggest the same:
Do we have additional guidance as to what 'serious' means? Otherwise I'm happy to stick with my intuition as to what the word 'serious' means within the guideline. Jack4576 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that elaboration of what "serious" means is a potential idea for improvement of WD:N, and it has been discussed on the talk page there. In the absence of such clarification, I agree with @Emu regarding the entry, and also doubt Zaubee as a source establishing notability. Jamie7687 (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the absence of such clarification I maintain that the ordinary and plain meaning of 'serious' encompasses and includes the sources above, although I acknowledge that reasonable minds may differ. Jack4576 (talk) Jack4576 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myriad Sun (Q119044055): Music band formed in Perth, Western Australia: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WD:N #2
Subject identifiable as an independent entity within the RTRFM reference present on the page
Specifically, the subject are identifiable as a band on the event poster on the page
RTRFM is a serious and publicly accessible source of information
The nominator makes a serious error
(this is Jack4576 on an IP edit) 11:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I have now added this additional source, from ABC News: Jack4576 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note #2: I have now added this additional source, from the music review magazine Tonedeaf Jack4576 (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note #3: I have now added this additional source, a music review in XPRESS mag: Jack4576 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dynatrace Austria GmbH (Q108293168): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Seems to be redundant to Dynatrace (Q25048844) Matthias M. (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be the Austrian subsidiary. It’s mentioned here, so maybe WD:N #3 notability? Though I’m not sure. --Emu (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muhammed Ali Akdemir (Q113621498): Turkish actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There are two sources but they may be too weak to confirm the subject's notability. I may be wrong. See also Topic:X44fddrw20cyp7ee for the context. Wolverène (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject is identifiable as an entity from the sources, and I see no reason to regard these sources as not serious. They appear to be genuine sources regarding a topic of serious interest to a reasonable number of people.
IMO therefore the subject qualifies per WD:N #2 Jack4576 (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IMDB page is now empty; the reason could be a request by the subject, or that the credits were disputed. I'm unsure of the reliability of the other sources, and Google search doesn't find anything else useful. Peter James (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Neutral As the undeleting admin, I have no strong opinion on the matter, but I note that User:Wulsawn removed several valid references (now restored). Bovlb (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: @Wolverène I check everything thoroughly before reporting here, these Turkish spams are mostly from same a few sockpuppeteer spammers. There are a few sockpuppet cases and some a few dozen blocked users, they apparently now use single purpose accounts to spam to evade being detected, and even if detected, to avoid all their spams easily erased, so sockpuppet cases are pretty much useless now. As you can imagine just like how they abuse this place, they also abuse other user contributed sites like IMDB, TMDB and others. IMDB page was emptied because the credits were fake. Two links here are spam sites (biliyo, kimnereli), and the other two are user contributed databases abused by them. In short, this is not notable in any way and it's spam. Tehonk (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

radical feminist (Q122067061): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No use, created as pure POV --Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the same POV-user, that invented is for that purpose. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I agree, the creator seems a POV-user, original research, owner-like behavior. Just uses this item to label living people: ¿sabotage? I apologize, I just opened the same request some hours later. PedroAcero76 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No sources, no notability, no sense since there is an entry for radical feminism. POV-purpose item, just take a look to the latest edits on Feminazi and "radical feminism" itself by the creator/self-proclaimed owner of this item. ¿Possible sabotage? I think he/she deserves a warning by an administrator, since Wikidata should not be any POV warrior's battlefield. --PedroAcero76 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Radical feminism is different in concept to a particular person being a 'radical feminist'. I disagree that this is amounts to problematic POV warrior-ing. The lack of sources however is an issue, although this is such a manifestly obvious subject/entity that I'm comfortable keeping it in this case. Jack4576 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's a pure POV-pushing invention of one user, with complete and utter nonsensicl edits to it. To include a only derogatory rightwing smearword (Feminazi has no real world meaning besides bullying the non-manosphere by the toxic manospherists) as part of its definition says it all imho. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (