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. Duplicate items should not be deleted and thus not listed on this page. If help is needed with the merging of items, see the instructions at Help:Merge.

Admins either delete the page or tag the request with {{Not deleted}}.

Add a new request

Translate this header box!

On this page, old requests are archived, if they are marked with {{Deleted}}. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at June 6.

Project chat	Lexicographical data	Administrators' noticeboard	Development team
Translators' noticeboard	Request a query	Requests for deletions	Requests for comment
Bot requests	Requests for permissions	Property proposal	Properties for deletion
Partnerships and imports	Interwiki conflicts	Bureaucrats' noticeboard	Requests for checkuser

Requests for deletions

medium

_{62 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with `{{Delete}}`Edit

User talk:Anubhav1331

User:Deal2profit

Wikidata:Donate data to Wikipedia

User talk:Namvietplastic

Template:Subnet: welcome

User talk:Yaoweh

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.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

Q1788171Edit

A.S. Siracusa Calcio 1924 (DEPRECATED) (Q1788171): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There are really a messed up heritage of a football club which multi legal persons claiming as successor. New item had replaced Q1788171 as Associazione Sportiva Siracusa (Q39052565), A.S.D. Città di Siracusa (Q4647072) and U.S. Siracusa (Q28195113). Fourth item to be created for yet another legally unrelated team A.S.D. Città di Siracusa for 2012-13 season. --Matthew hk (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: - Can you look into the links to Q1788171? If they should all link to one of the new items you listed you might want to merge that one with Q1788171 and leave it at that. Otherwise all pages need to be updated to link to the correct new item. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I think wikidata need a function to unmerge. Someone incorrectly preform a merge for this to be deleted item (Q1788171) to another entry A.S.D. Città di Siracusa (Q4647072), without really checking the problem. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, A.S. Siracusa Calcio 1924 (DEPRECATED) (Q1788171) now became the entry for the team "A.S.D. Siracusa" which found in 2003, while Associazione Sportiva Siracusa (Q39052565) was for the original team, and U.S. Siracusa (Q28195113) for the illegitimate successor, if no one troll the data roll again, any player that actually play for Q39052565 but incorrectly tag for Q1788171 (which original need to be deleted but incorrectly merged with Q4647072), should shown error as the time in the team preddate the foundation value in Q1788171. All i need is some software to let me run bot / semi-automatic edit to trace it and correct it. But ideally interally they are fixed in wikidata, any ext database that point to Q1788171 now **** up due to the silly merge. Matthew hk (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You can undo a merge via the item history, by restoring an old revision. Would that be sufficient to solve the situation by yourself? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Last time i preform unmerge / restore it said i don't have the user rights. I guess that item is different from this item. Ok, item restored, back to the step to clean up incoming link. Matthew hk (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Items about start-ups, created by User:DoqumeEdit

Doqume (talk • contribs • logs) has created around 1000 items about start-ups (seemingly) which do not meet our notability requirements. Creations have been done in roughly two batches, a larger one in May, another one yesterday. It is not clear where the data was imported from as no sources are provided.

There has been a similar situation with Freebald (talk • contribs • logs) during this summer/fall (see Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/10#Company items). Although the edit pattern is quite similar, it is not clear whether this is the same user. Freebald's items were deleted back then. I suggest doing the same with Doqume's creations, unless there is a significant improvement possible. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The items have no significant information to fulfill our notability criteria, and it's very inefficient even as a spam because the search engines don't index such items. Assuming also that 8 of 10 start-ups and small business are doomed to be failed during their first year, I can't imagine totally how these items will be helpful for anyone. --Wolverène (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

All items which he has been the only editor can be deleted immediately. Any that remain can be reviewed before being deleted. (and I suggest deleting them soon, before he sees my comment and uses an IP or a buddy to edit them) Quakewoody (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
These are not the only items created by Doqume; batches should be discussed separately. This discussion seems to be about four batches; two in December (temporary_batch_1575910138151 and temporary_batch_1575910328784) and two in May (temporary_batch_1558953002438 and temporary_batch_1558950796207) in which many of the items are probably not notable, although any that have been improved sufficiently or merged shouldn't be deleted. Items created in October (temporary_batch_1571569403746) all seem to be hedge funds and are more likely to be notable. Other items are the "Y Combinator" items which are for structural purposes, and a few items that were created before these and can be discussed separately if necessary. Peter James (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see much benefit of wasting time with them as even the creator doesn't seem to be that interested. --- Jura 01:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  - There has been no attempt at discussion on their talk page, and the only other discussion where their name has been linked is only two days ago, just after they were blocked for a week. Even without the block, that would be too soon to say they are not interested. Peter James (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  - When I said batches should be discussed separately, that was intended as a reply to Quakewoody; the four batches in May and December are similar enough for this discussion. Peter James (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And when I said they should be deleted without question, I was referring to just the latest batch because I thought that is what we were discussion - the latest batch. Quakewoody (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As a member of Wikiproject Companies, I vote to keep them. Any info about startups is useful to us, eg in the EU project InnoRate. I reviewed a few of the contributions of both users, and they seem to be made in good faith. Sure, the info is a bit poor but it's not much worse than what you find in an official Trade Register. And then people add to it: I saw several Industries added, one link to frwiki, etc. The suspicion it's added illegally from CrunchBase is just that, a suspicion. The fact there's always Linkedin and website tells me it's from PeopleDataLabs, whose company data is open. If you have no personal interest in company data (and can contribute better data), leave it alone --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Handelsregister about the inclusion of company registry data. I don't think we should favor one branch of the economy or development stage of a corporation over others. --- Jura 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Q54595346Edit

Melodie Gore (Q54595346): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

First of all, she's not an adult actress as stated in the item. She made appearances in two alt porn films in non-sex roles and there are some nude photos can be found but this fact doesn't make her 'pornographic actress' in the general sense, so the item misleads the users. Among a minimal number of Google search results there are nothing that proves her notability in the sense of WD:N #2, all I can find on her is that she's just a alternative cosplay model, in short a next-door tattooed girl with ~4K subscribers at Facebook. The Commons category is the only thing that's justifying the existance of the item but everybody can upload there anything and categorize it. Wolverène (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Just realized that she appeared in this made-for-YouTube film, as the #110 in the credits, I don't know maybe it's enough for somebody. --Wolverène (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Can be deleted if the Commonscat was deleted as well. Otherwise "structural need" due to the Commons infobox. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Should this mean that items can be created about literally everyone who distinguished with Commons category with a Wikidata infobox? Such a fragile privilege, sounds like the infobox is a sort of 'indulgentia' for items for non-notable persons. --Wolverène (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That has been discussed several times in the past two years roughly, and lots of Commons users have strongly lobbied for such an approach. I do not like it as well, as I think that the Commons project has a serious problem with promotional content and unsourced content which in turn spills to Wikidata as well, but this is how it is usually done currently.
As a Wikidata admin, I am usually not going to file deletion requests for categories or files at Commons. However, if I think this should be done, I leave a note as above as a hint that someone else please does this. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Q4992747Edit

Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily (Q4992747): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Suspected hoax. On the English Wikipedia, the related article was deleted after public concerns were raised on whether the person ever existed. Its articles on the Greek and French Wikis have since been deleted too for the same reasons. --Voello (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: apparent hoax; no evidence of notability. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC).

Anyone...? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC).

{{not done}}, has sitelink. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ZI Jony: as a non-admin you can't delete it, so its improper for you to decide that it shouldn't be deleted. Also, you made that edit while flagged as a flooder. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
On hold ruwiki article tagged for deletion. Lets see if they agree that it is a hoax --DannyS712 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- There's consensus in the Russian Wikipedia that the person actually existed, the article is still tagged for deletion but I guess that will be probably kept. I remember a couple of cases in the English Wikipedia when a page deleted because of being allegedly a hoax, but in fact sysop just didn't look for sources carefully...

Anyway if the community still believes the princess wasn't real, some extra statements may be added. legendary figure (Q13002315) or..? --Wolverène (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. You may join the discussion, using English. They say there's some misunderstanding with her birthdate and she actually wasn't the twin sister of Maria Christina as it's still stated in the ruWP. --Wolverène (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Q12700598Edit

Pgx (Q12700598): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, only article about to be deleted Nadzik (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

On hold until the page is "actually" deleted. — regards, Revi 12:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly not notable (there are no references), but there is no request for deletion in the article, which was last edited in January 2019 - the templates at the top are "cleanup" and "wikify" - and the only link to the article is from its talk page, which just has a talk page template. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I added a proposed deletion template, with a link to their verifiability policy. The "proposed deletion notify" template there transcludes a template that doesn't exist and has two red links to project pages. The deletion categories also haven't been created. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Q15635201Edit

Q15635201: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Redundancy. Same than Q28155311. Only the link to c:Commons:Picture of the Year is correct, and thus should probably be moved. --Basile Morin (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

They should be merged; the sl: link, which was added later, looks like something similar to Commons:Featured pictures (Q73329740). Peter James (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree they should be merged. How to do that? Can we just remove the main link to Commons, on the first one (Q15635201), and then add it to the 2nd one (Q28155311)? I think the sl: link should be ignored. Thanks, Peter James. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:MergeItems, or "merge" in the menu (can be enabled from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets - there is also "move" which adds a "move" button next to statements and sitelinks). The sl: link is also "picture of the year", I thought it was just "featured pictures", as that's what the top part of it describes, but the subpage /Slika_leta is picture of the year. It's possible that Q15635201 is a general "picture of the year" and Q28155311 is specifically Commons:Picture of the Year, because of the official website (P856) and links to the item. There is also the difference between "competition" and "project page". Peter James (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, the official website of Q28155311 is the same page than the target of Q15635201 (other site: Commons). How is it possible? -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've mentioned it at Wikidata:Project chat#Two items that should have the same sitelink. Peter James (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Could the categories on Commons be merged? - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

One is a category, the other is a project page. The category could be removed, but what is preventing them being merged is that one is a competition specifically on Commons, the other is a project page which has the same page on Commons and an equivalent Wikipedia page that it should be linked to. Peter James (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Q86247107Edit

Mehdi Rajabi (Q86247107): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Seeking 2nd opinion. please verify information. everything mh6ti edits is questionable. Quakewoody (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The item was created based on the Cycling Archives cyclist ID (P1409), for a statement in Q83284386. There is also a Russian Wikipedia article. Possibly the most recent edit [1] should be reverted. Peter James (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I reverted; similar IPs have been adding a combination of correct information and incorrect, such as date of birth, which seems to be of another person (based on en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/مهیار_مهرنیا/Archive#Comments by other users 2). Peter James (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

In Latin letters, his name is found in the following variations - Name - Mehdi or Mahdi, Surname - Rajabi Kaboodcheshmeh or Rajabikaboodches Hmeh. Competition Sources page 36 (here is his ID - it matches the one indicated on the CQ) and page 3 on Cycling Federation of Iran (here is his UCI-code - which represents the date of birth). His results at the World Cup on site UCI 1 and 2 — GAN (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Inactive TaxonsEdit

Q49629647 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629630 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629634 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629650 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629641 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629638 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q49629644 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Check the sources: iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151). --Termininja (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Q41083431Edit

Gallus cf. lafayettei (Q41083431): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not valid (see Q40996364) Termininja (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy So is this the same or what's on here? As always: I have no idea what this means and I appreciate input here :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Support for delete is of no nomenclatural value. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It has referenced statements, it is however a duplicate of Gallus lafayetii (Q256168) and can be merged --Andrawaag (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Support database artifact, originating from the (mis)copying of an inappropriate database. This is meaningless without context: it is like "10 miles outside Rome", which may be meaningful in a particular context "the villa bought by the movie star is 10 miles outside Rome" but is otherwise meaningless. - Brya (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete The reference of taxon name (P225) is false (contrary to Andrawaag's writings), so the only valid Item is Gallus lafayetii (Q256168). So Support, if you prefer. —Eihel (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Q81380330Edit

Matthew Fuller (Q81380330): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable Aziz979 (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There's actually more non-notable family links than the 3 that were nominated. Quakewoody (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Q49755155Edit

Q49755155: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Rome (Q220). Corresponding page on ceb.wiki should be linked to the right item but since it's a semi-protected page I can't do it --TriggerOne (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Both items have a cebwiki link so they can't be merged until someone merges them on cebwiki. - Nikki (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem with merging in the cebwp, but note that in fact this may be a duplicate of Q18288160 (Metropolitan City of Rome). I'll try to fix there later but I could do this only blindly since I have virtually zero understanding of Cebuano. --Wolverène (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GeoNames identifiers are 3169069=Metropolitan City of Rome (Q18288160)=metropolitan city, 3169070=Q49755155=populated place and and 3169071=Roma Capitale (Q3940419)=comune. Most of the data in Q220 probably refers to Q3940419, but it's an administrative entity created in 2009 so they are not the same; if the boundaries are the same, Q220 could be linked to Q3940419 with coextensive with (P3403) and a start date (also many statements currently in Q220 should be moved to Q3940419), then Q49755155 is a duplicate of Q220. The alternative is that Q220 is a conflation of Q49755155 and Q3940419. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Q81379978Edit

Mary Rowley (Q81379978): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable. Please check notability Aziz979 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Linked to two others items (Q81380022 and William Olmsted (Q81379731)) that are not more notable. All three items only have a FamilySearch person ID (P2889). Not sure it is enough. Pamputt (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Q86601821Edit

Some people try to confuse "Abolished subject" and "Killing End", because that's the same words and different meanings. The "Killing End" item and that Cantonese webpage(Zh-yue) DOESNOT meet notability requirements and that's vandalism zh-yue wikipedia 1 The source for follow up case Q86601821. The source for follow up case Q86601821. . The same thing has been deleted on the Chinese website(Zh), we have discussed at 2020/04/01 zh wikipedia The source for follow up case Q86601821.. I think some mainland cantonese manage are very unfriendly...very domineering!! Please remove all of that "Fake Cantonese"!! --123.202.14.45 16:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - item has sitelink on zh_yuewiki, should be nominated for deletion and deleted locally before this item can be deleted on Wikidata. Romaine (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)