Wikidata:Requests for deletions

(Redirected from Wikidata:RFD)

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

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

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

Please use {{Q}} the first time you mention an item. Unless you use the gadget, please also ping the item's creator in your request (or ping the bot operator, when appropriate) if 1) the user is still active on Wikidata and 2) the user has contributed the majority of information in that item.

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

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard instead. 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

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.

Requests for deletions


62 open requests for deletions.

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}Edit

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.


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


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 - (talkcontribslogs) 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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)


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)


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)


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)


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 - (talkcontribslogs) 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)


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 2GAN (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Inactive TaxonsEdit

  1. Q49629647 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q49629630 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q49629634 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q49629650 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q49629641 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q49629638 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q49629644 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

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


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

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

Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Prot D
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
William Avery
Mike Krüger
  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)


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)


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

Duplicate of Rome (Q220). Corresponding page on 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)


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)


Killing End (Q86601821): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

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"!! -- 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)

persons related to WordCamp US eventsEdit


Patrick Garman (Q59830339): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2017 (Q28870288), one of 58 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Jonathan Desrosiers (Q59714904): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100), one of 40 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Winstina Hughes (Q59829219): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2017 (Q28870288), one of 58 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Chris Wiegman (Q59715974): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100), one of 21 people linked as organizer (P664) there. Peter James (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Kyle Maurer (Q59698381): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100), one of 40 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Brett Shumaker (Q59715587): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Links are as organizer (P664) of WordCamp US 2017 (Q28870288) (one of 18) and WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100) (one of 21). Peter James (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Josh Pollock (Q59830357): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2017 (Q28870288), one of 58 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Andrew Taylor (Q59695024): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100), one of 40 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Trade, Peter James:, I see a number of people I added as WordCamp speakers in this RFD list. To me they all fit the "serve as a general knowledge base" notability qualification, in that they are Wikidata-notable because they were speakers at an important international development conference. Not necessarily Wikipedia-notable, but worth keeping in Wikidata because they are influential voices in their fields. The kind of person who speaks a lot, writes a lot, and has influence in a particular field of work. ([2], [3]) Sweet kate (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I sincerely regret nominatig those items for deletion. I should have checked them for structural need first. --Trade (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


Dwayne McDaniel (Q59714748): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2018 (Q59692100), one of 40 people linked as speaker (P823) there. Peter James (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Steve Zehngut (Q59830425): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Link is from WordCamp US 2017 (Q28870288), one of 18 people linked as organizer (P664) there. Peter James (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion requestEdit

cinemas in Russia, advertising, no links, not notable Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not advertising; most cinemas in the UK have been added to Wikidata so this was probably part of something similar. Most haven't been added to the same databases as the UK and US cinemas; I don't know if there are alternatives, or other sources that could be used. Peter James (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep, add coordinates/addresses and (if possible) links to free non-Wikimedia projects. Useful for other database projects. --AVRS (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Pokémon Red and Green (Q91030617): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Published in difference region.Can be treated as same game. Meger to Q637137. MirrorWuu (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like they are different combinations of Pokémon Red (Q25536523), Pokémon Blue (Q25536524) and Pokémon Green (Q11942165); there are probably structural reasons to keep them separate, as well as different dates and identifiers (although some of the identifiers look like they should be on the parts). If combined it would look like there was an earlier release date for Pokémon Blue, for example. Peter James (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Airon90 Julián L. Páez Tris T7 TT me Tris T7 (talk) ...

  Notified participants of WikiProject Pokémon ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

These two items refers to different games (Red and Green have been published in Japan in 1996 while Red and Blue worldwide in 1998) and they also have different identifiers. Wikidata is not Wikipedia: if items refer to different items they must have different Q-items. I'm against the merging and the deletion (WD:N #2) --★ → Airon 90 09:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


Kinoteatr Yunost Odintsovo (Q30254297): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Cinema in Russia, advertising, no links, not notable. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's advertising, as there are many similar items; unfortunately no references or identifiers have been added. Peter James (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This is one of five cinemas in Odintsovo (population ~140,000). It seems to be the oldest cinema there, existing from 1930s, but I've read this information in some blog. Unless there's some more valuable source, which personally I couldn't found, the item may be deleted. The cinema is not something of the top notability anyway. --Wolverène (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Google ID and official website exist. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Saying 'Google ID' do you mean Google knowledge graph? Creating an item at Wikidata is usually enough to gain a knowledge graph in a several days. What's for a website, everyone self-respecting entertainment facility has own website and Instagram account (I mean countries where Internet is widespread), so this doesn't make it special. --Wolverène (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request X modelEdit

redundancy, see Wikidata:Project chat#Android smartphone model MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

now at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/05#Android_smartphone_model MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

With English labels:

  1. belt sander model (Q23811260)
  2. circular saw model (Q23811261)
  3. drill model (Q23811262)
  4. grinder model (Q23811263)
  5. hammer drill model (Q23811264)
  6. impact wrench model (Q23811265)
  7. jig saw model (Q23811266)
  8. miter saw model (Q23811267)
  9. orbital sander model (Q23811268)
  10. reciprocating saw model (Q23811269)
  11. screwdriver model (Q23811270)
  12. scooter model (Q23867828)
  13. moped model (Q23868001)

MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghouston, Epìdosis: no progress. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I support deletion when they are unused and have no external reference IDs or site links. Ghouston (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Erelu Kuti (Q62071484): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The page already exist under this name Abiola Dosunmo --Em-mustapha t@lk 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Erelu Kuti (Q5385424) seem more to be a title that a person (if I look enwiki). --Fralambert (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


Qazi Family (Q62024120): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by an LTA sock account/IP (see en:WP:LTA/SAMI) Gotitbro (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  pending deletion on urwiki --Esteban16 (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert all Indian bank branch entries created by AtuduEdit

A user, Atudu (talkcontribslogs), seems to have created upwards of a hundred thousand entries for Indian bank branches. A good majority only have two statements and others have 5 , but they only reference the main bank and an Indian Financial System Code. None of them seem notable. Even the ones with an Indian Financial System code, but especially the entries that don't have one. They don't seem to enhance the database at all either. Its extremely questionable that every branch for every bank in India would be notable or need it's own entry. Even if they have a Indian Financial System Code. Or that they are even being used anywhere. For one example search for Union Bank of India. It has entries for around 3,600 branches. Maybe that would be a good place to start. Outside of that, I'm not really sure how to approach this given the large amount of entries. As it would be impossible to list and delete them all individually. Maybe there could be an edit revert for the user within a certain time period or something. Since it looks like they create entries for a specific topic in blocks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose - all items have valid external identifier, hence notable as per Wikidata notability policy. - Bodhisattwa (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The ones with only two statements don't have an external identifier. Should I do them separately or something instead? It would be a massive pain to sort through them to weed out ones that don't have an external identifier, since it's like fifty thousand, but maybe I can figure out a way to make it easier or something. Deleting the ones that don't have one would still a massive improvement IMO. Plus, I'd like to know where an external identifier automatically makes something notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, you know most every bank in the world has an external identifier with the routing number right? There's another unique identifier I can't remember the name of right now also. Both are semi-meaningless IMO. Especially for notability and in absence of other things to establish it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The items with only two statements are the subclass of bank branches and they are not fifty thousand, they are only 113 in number. What I can do to help is to add more statements in these items, but as these are general items, not much can be done for these 113 items. The individual branches have these items as P31, so they are also linked with each other. The individual branches have Indian Financial System Code (P4635) as external identifiers. Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is a valid and serious external identifier, used by the entire banking sector of India to identify bank, hence it fulfills the Criterion 2 of Notability policy. The coordinates of these individual branches are missing though, but what I have learned from other editors, that the process of adding the coordinates is underway, so when that is done, they can be used in the maps easily. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It seemed like more then that. Still though, if they just exist to display on a map there are other projects like OpenStreetMap that are made for that and would be a better place for the information. The purpose of Wikidata is to be a linked database, not a map. Plus, the entries have been in Wikidata for a few years now, none of them have coordinates anyway, and I doubt they ever will. Even if they did have coordinates though, Per notability guidelines "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where exactly are those references? Or should we ignore the need for them just so the entries display on a map? Also, them referencing each other doesn't work for nobility IMO. Otherwise, it's circular notability, like saying while A and B aren't notable on their own, but A+B is. That's not how notability works. Especially in absence of serious references. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that the only use of the data is to display them on maps, please dont twist my language. I said, people are working on the coordinates and trying to enrich the items and one of the use is to display them on maps. There may be other uses too, I just cited one. The sole purpose of Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is to link Indian bank branches. If you think, all these bank branch items should be deleted, then there is no purpose for Indian Financial System Code (P4635) to exist and you have to delete the property itself, and so will all the external identifiers which are used as a single identifier in any items. I guess, enriching those items will be far more productive than this discussion, if they lack some data. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say you did, but that's what you said they were going to use it for and like I said below a hypothetical of what something could be used for isn't useful IMO. Especially when you haven't said what it is. Otherwise it's just circular reasoning. Really though, your the one twisting my language by falsely inferring that I think Indian Financial System Code (P4635) is worthless and should be gotten rid of, just because I don't think these entries are notable. It's kind of a ridiculous argument to make and shows your clearly not being fair about this. You know the general usage of Indian Financial System Code (P4635) has nothing to do with it and neither does other single identifier entries. I've said several times it's the lack of anything else with it, there's entries that don't have the identifier anyway, and I don't have to do a deletion request for every damn problem out there to do this one. So, stick to the subject instead of trying to deflect to worthless whataboutisms. Btw, where do the notability guidelines something only needs a single external identifier to be notable? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep no valid reason for deletion, seems to be clearly inside the rules of Wikidata (WD:N). The lack of data is a call for improvment not for deletion. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
To cite WD:N "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Where are the serious references to make these notable? A single identifier is not "references." You could use the same excuse of how something should be improved instead of deleting it for almost anything. The question is if there is actually something that meets the standard of serious references to improve it with. Which these don't have. Even the comment by Bodhisattwa confirms the only reason they were put in Wikidata is so they display on a map. Which is an extremely weak reason to keep them and has nothing to do with their notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Adamant, see my comment above. Please dont infer something which I didnt say or intend to say. Also, yes, according to WD:N, one serious external identifier is enough to prove notability on Wikidata. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not inferring anything. That's what you said they were using it for. That's not to say there not be another use case, but it's the specific one you mentioned. Everything could potentially be used for something. I don't really care about hypothetical use cases. Especially non-existent ones.

  Info I am willing to have a look at the case from an admin perspective, however in the current shape this request is not workable. Can you please list affected items explicitly (either by listing them here if not too many, or via a query, or a link to Special:Contributions/Atudu)? I would otherwise have to close this discussion as "not done". Thanks, —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: This request, as the tone of the requestor would seem to indicate, would appear to extend to every item for which the only external identifier present is an Indian Financial System Code (P4635) (and the user named in this deletion request is not the only creator of such items). As such something as simple as
SELECT ?i { ?i wdt:P4635 [] }
Try it! would be sufficient to identify all items that the requestor is targeting here. Mahir256 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, the deletion request includes ones where there isn't an external identifier, of which there are many. Unfortunately the query provided by Mahir256 leaves them out and I'm not sure how to do one without the identifier, that would get the banks that don't include one. The query with it is still useful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The query lists *only* items with identifiers, since this is the only search criterium of that query. If you have troubles to list all of the items, can you please provide some three to five examples here? I would then try to figure out more… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's some examples. Until recently when Bodhisattwa added the country all of them just had two statements, that referenced themselves. None of them have an external identifier.

--Adamant1 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have explained earlier, there are 113 items which denotes subclass of (P279) Bank branch (Q21073937) of different Indian banks. These items are used as instance of (P31) for the individual branches (which Mahir256 has queried). These 113 items are not the individual branches and these will not have any external identifier. If these 113 items are deleted, instance of (P31) of all the individual branches will be gone. This is basic concept of subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31), one does not delete items with subclass of (P279) statements because they does not have external identifiers. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You should really stop campaigning and let MisterSynergy look into it like they said they would. Commenting on everything is utterly worthless. Like you said, you've already gave your opinion a couple of times. So everyone knows what it is at this point and it doesn't add anything to keep repeating it. Just because they are a subclass of something isn't relevant anyway. As being a subclass doesn't automatically make something notable. Plus, the label says City Union Bank Limited branch and it's a part of City Union Bank Limited etc etc. So, that sounds like a "branch" to me. At least as far as it not needing an entry goes IMO. Your just arguing semantics. I never said anything about external identifiers having to do with it originally. Your the one that brought it up and you keep talking in circles about it. If something is worthy of an entry just because it is a subclass, at least MisterSynergy can look into it anyway and figure it out without you giving your personal opinion over and over. So, give it a rest and the let process work itself out please. Especially since you've already said multiple things that were blatantly wrong and clearly have a slant toward keeping the entries whatever the facts are. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I was not campaigning, but yeah, you are right, I made my point and I have nothing more to say. I also request you to refrain from personally attacking me, that is not at all needed in these difficult times in which we all are living. Apologies also from my side if I have done something wrong. From now on, I will not discuss anything here. Take care. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The branches are instances of these items, but are they necessary when they can be instances of Bank branch (Q21073937), with operator (P137) or part of (P361) (or even brand (P1716) if an operator has more than one brand) to say which bank they are branches of? Peter James (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Info: I still plan to look into this, but it is not a request which is particularly easy to process, so please be patient. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I thought something like this had came up before and that the consensus then was that this type of information is to granular. I've essentially made the same ones here with the bank branches. It's also worth mentioning that when support for the Indian Financial System Code was added it was with the covet that it would not automatically make every entity that has such an identifier qualify as notable (to quote ArthurPSmith). An extremely good case could be made that it doesn't work for notability for the same reason Handelsregister doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


Homa Saadat (Q93933926): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wait for local deletions Quakewoody (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • A user (not a sock) removed the article's deletion tag. So, if any native speakers can go and check the content of the article to see if it needs re-nominated, it would be appreciated. Quakewoody (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


Q93954826: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wait for local deletion Quakewoody (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • A new user (who has been extremely active for a new user) removed the article's deletion tag. So, if any native speakers can go and check the content of the article to see if it needs re-nominated, it would be appreciated. Quakewoody (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That user was another sock. He's been blocked. Quakewoody (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Q20154706: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty --2001:B07:6442:8903:B571:149D:33AD:E7C4 08:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
solved --2001:B07:6442:8903:A04E:AB12:D342:77D5 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Presumably the link was from Q20154708, which was deleted as empty but had a link from Karlheinz Viereck (Q1733851) that shouldn't have been removed. Peter James (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I restored the statement, and there is now a link to the item. If it is a duplicate it should be merged. Removing statements, removing statements that link to it from other items, and then requesting deletion as it is empty looks like vandalism - is there a reason for these changes? Peter James (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


Q12722812: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Wolverène (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


Saeed Panahi (Q92546750): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

LTA wait for local deletion Quakewoody (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Before any deletion cam occur we need to know if the ResearchGate profile ID belongs to the subject or to a completely different person. --Trade (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • according to the images, they are different people. Which, let's face it, is typical of Mh6ti spam. Quakewoody (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  pending deletion on urwiki. --Esteban16 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Q89222488: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@四葉亭四迷: please expand this item, otherwise it qualifies for deletion. It looks pretty incomplete. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Keep per structural need: The jawiki page of Awaji Kannon (Q11482263) states him as founder. This page is quite possible the reason for Q89222488 and Okuuchi Tougei Museum (Q89223040). --Haansn08 (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


Harling Bassukarno (Q94113635): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable subject. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold. Pending deletions. This is a cross-wiki case. --Esteban16 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Surealisme Dekoratif (dimensi dadaisme classic & modern) (Q94294342): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable subject, possibly spamming. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Comment It's a cross-wiki spam by Q94113635. Flixwito^(•‿•)^ 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  on-going deletion process on jawiki. Esteban16 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Akash Jyoti Nath (Q76400028): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Textlo (Q69786243): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How can this be deleted? It has a linked wiki article? BrokenSegue (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  on-going deletion process on hiwiki. Esteban16 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit group QSv2/34465Edit

Summary {{{summary}}} Author Salgo60 (talkcontribslogs)
Number of edits 151 (more statistics) Example edit Q94993741

Import of copyright protected data, as per Abbe98 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

see T236131#6157896 it says open and free - Salgo60 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It does not as per the discussion referred to above. Abbe98 (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I dont follow you. They have defined access constraints free and on restrictions they have defined for photos, images and video please contact the principal investigator i.e. data is not mentioned under restrictions. Best would be if Bolin Centre for Climate Research (Q30263284) stated cc0 “No Rights Reserved” for data. They didnt work today friday but I will do a try on monday and ask them to better define if they have "No Rights reserved" on the data or how we should understand what we can do with the data as in the Wikidata community some people feel its to vague defined - my task T236131#6157896 - Salgo60 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


Headquarters, Arizona (Q28222162): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Bogus: per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona. I have asked for the linked (fa. and zh.) Wikipedia articles to be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


Gallups, Arizona (Q28221800): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Bogus: per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallups, Arizona. I have asked for the linked (fa. and zh.) Wikipedia articles to be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


sex (L27154): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Apparently not a Lexeme (no dictionary knows it, not even the French Wiktionary which is quite extensive and exhaustive). I've asked the creator (@Jura1:) but got no answer. --VIGNERON (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

agree, unlike sexy, the English word "sex" is not a French lexeme. SashiRolls (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I find it in french context here (!!! Some NSFW website !!!). Lyokoï (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks @Lyokoï: but most (if not all?) seems to be adjective so at least the lexical category needs to be corrected. @Jura1: it would by really useful and helpful if you could tell what you meant. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


Selenita (Q27767666): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No serious ref, no satellite image --Bouzinac (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not done, two site links.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bouzinac: si tu as des doutes sur l'existence de cet aérodrome, il faut d'abord faire supprimer les articles sur les Wikipédias en suédois et cebuano. C'est une condition sine qua none pour la suppression sur Commons. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


Q95454384: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

To merge with another page Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


Category:Babies of Russia (Q83609870): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Out of scope / spam A.Savin (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Commons category needs to be deleted first. Once this is done, we'd delete here as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"Babies in Russia" is actually a relevant category for Commons, while "Ребенок в России" (sic) not relevant for Wikidata IMHO. @Ymblanter: What do you think --A.Savin (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • edit conflict @A.Savin: that didn't mean you were to remove the link from the item. it means that the category needs deleted on commons before we can delete it here.Quakewoody (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If it is relevant to commons, we have no reason to delete here. Quakewoody (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, no, we explicitly have it written in the policy that an existence of a Commons category does not create notability for Wikidata, and we have quite a few Commons categories which do not have (and hopefully will never have) Wikidata items. We need to discuss these cases individually. I do not see how this topic is notable for Wikidata and I would recommend deleting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The local Wikidata infobox removed. Now I guess the item here shall be deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep This looks fine to me, the item has a Commons category sitelink, and Wikidata content will be displayed there (pi bot will add the infobox back at some point). I've expanded the item a bit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Rajesh Chaplot (Q69802076): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems I created this for Wikipedia articles with a series of others. In the meantime, it seems that the associated article was moved without leaving a redirect. While I have no opinion about the notability of the subject (now that no sitelink is left), I think we should investigate if we don't have more of them. I think @Trade: identified another one just a week ago. Let's hold deletion until this is investigated. --- Jura 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean i "investigated another one just a week ago"?--Trade (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
"identified" (not investigated). I think you had found a similar one a week ago and listed it for deletion. I left a note on Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#Moved_without_leaving_a_redirect_at_Wikipedia,_sitelink_remained_on_Wikidata. --- Jura 12:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Pratham Singh (Q95572520): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Fermanville (Q49350133): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q653064 --Martin' (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold ceb:Fermanville (lungsod) still exist and Q653064 has another entry for the cebwiki, so these cannot be merged until that's fixed on the cebwiki. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 17:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


wildlife management area of a state of the United States (Q35080211): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unnecessary duplicate of wildlife management area (Q8001309). Bringing it here rather than merging as it links via "subclass of", and additional viewpoints would be useful. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not the same thing. One is only for the US. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: What's special about the US here? They seem to have the same labels and scope, so it just looks like an arbitrary geographic distinction. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, Thierry Caro:I think there nothing special about the US, since it is a type of protection of the states and not the federal. « Wildlife Management Area of South Carolina » is probably a better since we can put applies to jurisdiction (P1001). The two should be merged. --Fralambert (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep each instance has as type a class of entities established by a US state, e.g. Q28230917, which also has it's own article in enwiki. @Mike Peel, Thierry Caro, Fralambert: Of course each US state is set in the framework of the USA, so the US WMAs share characteristics not found in non-US-WMAs, beginning with being created by a US state. The general class "WMA" is more questionable - why a class by arbitrary label "WMA"? If the ones from Canada would change nothing but the label, e.g. use Wildspecies Management Area would then a new class would be established because the US labels are different? This gives a lot of weight to the labels. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Rana Florida (Q20676649): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Not notable. Here due to "hubby". IMHO. E4024 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep due to presence of identifiers, and the structural need of her husband. she is also an author, but no one has added her books or columns to the database. and even, perhaps, someday her company(s) will be added. Quakewoody (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Template:Not delete Structural need. --Fralambert (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Andrew Rossow (Q95135499): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  •   Keep mentioned frequently in newspapers Germartin1 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Autophagy during Corona virus infection (Q93632877): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted upstream. Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


Wilk (Q21126161): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Повтор CheloVechek (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Besedilo (Q15623717): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Redundant to Q234460; couldn't merge because it was wrongly labeled as a disambiguation. — Yerpo Eh? 13:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yerpo: the page on which has been moved (sl:Besedilo) is labelled as disambiguation page on (there is sl:Template:Razločitev). First you should correct there, then you can correct here :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, I missed that. The disambiguation tag has been removed. — Yerpo Eh? 13:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


El Garron (Q95560344): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails notability Quakewoody (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  Keep Several notable people are known to have performed in this location (as determined by a wikipedia search). I have added the two mentions with work location (P937). --Haansn08 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


gigolo (Q29017672): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Should be Lexeme or merged with gigolo (Q1089730) Haansn08 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:In hold @Haansn08: there was something wrong with the links, in Italian Wikipedia we have it:Gigolò (only male), it:Escort (professione) (only girl) and it:Accompagnatore (both). We could exchange them and put "accompagnatore" (which was in Q1089730 before) in Q29017672. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Odeshie (Q87647541): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Haansn08 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


adarán (L45677): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Word invented by 1 man. Add Lexeme:L45709 Infovarius (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Delete obviously below the threshold of acceptable lexeme. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request Jean MotellEdit

fails notability. cross wiki self promotional spam. Quakewoody (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Q95483232: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty. De-article was deleted. --Dandelo (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  on-going deletion process on enwiki. --Esteban16 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Adodo Eddy Osaman (Q95920161): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails WD:N. Some random self-promotion. Hiàn (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  on-going deletion process on enwiki. --Esteban16 (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Barbara Everest (Q76101003): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not relevant Bahnmoeller (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


The Kerplunk (Q93132242): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  on-going deletion process on simplewiki. Esteban16 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Martin Philipp (Q79448357): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

* Non notable Trade (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep has ex identifiers Germartin1 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Damn, missed that one. --Trade (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Fahrenheit (Q61987149): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Supposedly a video game series where there is no series in reality. The game Fahrenheit from 2005 was remastered as Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy Remastered in 2015. The remaster is the exact same game with remade textures, not a sequel or successor. There are also no other Fahrenheit games. --IceWelder (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this is a discussion that should be taken up with Wikidata:Wikiproject video games. --Trade (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion requestEdit

  1. Q95803833 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q95804423 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Blank items 1857a (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Q95803833 has a sitelink to a template. Peter James (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


César Menacho (Q5202592): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

conflation, split into Q96003036 and Q96003038 --Cbasile06 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Jeet Singh (Q16195333): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
He is the founder of Art Technology Group (Q705757). Structural need maybe? Esteban16 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Jonno Turner (Q90439787): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Check notability. I think not notable and have not sitelinks. If is notable keep. ComeBacks (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Keep Listed in numerous authority files, has written a soccer book that is held in 49 WorldCat libraries. Enough for me. -- Discostu (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


Young Money (Q62393381): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable - not used in any projects Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If you follow the links, this should probably be merged with Q1070152. It seems to be one of 'those' cases where the artist is a person and group and label all at the same time. Quakewoody (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


child's voice (Q6164901): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It is an unnecessary duplicate of treble (Q1376492) --Jeanambr (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 9 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's nothing to discuss in all seriousness,   Keep. --Wolverène (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • From the English labels Q6164901 can be male or female; Q1376492 is specifically male. Links are from male and female characters. Peter James (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Tomorrow's Brightest Minds (Q7820210): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

IMDb is wrong here and belongs to Robert Boocheck (Q81588001) where it is. Entry at en-wiki deleted (not notable). MovieFex (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

According to IMDb (, this name was used by Robert Boocheck (Q81588001) for the video for Open Road (Q2329097), but if this is a use of a collective pseudonym it is not the same as Q81588001 and can be deleted. Peter James (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request historical items by LianemoraEdit

  1. Q95566445 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q95560344 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q95558511 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

as said on commons, we need to verify the validity of this person/place Quakewoody (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


Nagaswari (Q96093527): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Vandalism Eihel (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


overnight oats (Q96093330): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test edit not in the sand Eihel (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Emilio Sempris (Q96093253): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Eihel (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


1townboy inc (Q96093824): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion; not notable 94rain (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Kirkwood gap (Q96070330): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Already exists Misibacsi (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Q96068564: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test / The only label in Spanish is not a notable number 94rain (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


Q96068562: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test / The only label in Spanish is not a notable number 94rain (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)