Wikidata:Requests for deletions

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

Please use {{Q}} the first time you mention an item. Unless you use the gadget, please also ping the item's creator in your request (or ping the bot operator, when appropriate) if 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.

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please 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


~4 open requests for deletions.

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}Edit

None at the moment

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.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

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)

Items without statements by User:MoinatsEdit

User:Moinats has created quite some items without any statements:

I have deleted these items previously, but the creator has requested undeletion via Topic:Vq26sbn4gks08v0p as they have apparently used them in Wikimedia Commons with "depicts" (which is difficult to track). In their current form without statements, they are not useful for Wikidata as they are lacking a proper definition. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I added these items following extensive research in forestry; each of them describe a wood defect or a forestry-related notion, and I checked in English and German that this notion also existed, to verify that it wasn't some unclear notion which only existed in French. It is not the case: each item describe a clear and specific notion which does exist in forestry and woodworking, as a web search can prove. I tried to link the items to Wikimedia pictures and WP/WT articles, but such elements are not always present, and I am not able to create them quickly, lacking pictures for Wikimedia and time to create quality contents for WP/WT. I'll try to add these contents, but cannot guarantee to have the time to do so. —Moinats (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Just corrected the items; I hope this is enough. —Moinats (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
main subject (P921) should only be used on items about works--Trade (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Here you are. —Moinats (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Keep They look fine now --Trade (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Don't forget you can display the image here at Wikidata using "Image=", the more interlinks and adding an image helps make an entry more useful, and less deletion prone. --RAN (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: incomplete items by User:OleaEdit

Notability issues in the current form. Looks like an incomplete project by User:Olea. MisterSynergy (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But these are a Mix'n'match product. Olea (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter how you created these items. They need a proper definition with statements. In the current form it is dead content that nobody can use. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Olea: on the off-chance that you missed MisterSynergy's message. Mahir256 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: that conversation is not related in any way with this batch. Olea (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Olea: Looking at the Spanish labels of the first two items (Q76412204,Q76412218), they have the same problem as the one that is the topic of Topic:Vqw050kd49ax1arm and none has been fixed.
Further, none of the above have P31 (also mentioned in Topic:Vqw050kd49ax1arm)?
It's possible that you can't identify or fix all items yourself, but in that case, please ask for help (either request for deletion here, request repair at Wikidata:Bot requests, Wikidata:Request a query to identify them). --- Jura 19:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: Again: Those two batches has no relation at all. The BNE import was created in Mix'n'Match catalog by another person and I only edited through Mix'n'Match UI. The parenthesis thing here is due the nature of the external catalog. Related with this batch I've prepared an upload to put the URL properties as {{P|950}} values which should have been used at first. I'm trying to upload this batch but I'm having «Read timed out» errors with OpenRefine since last night. The other workflow is completely different and completely developed by me using OpenRefine. I know I've made some messy errors along the process but has been fixing many of them. Particularly the comment you mention has been addressed and fixed as full as I could. About the pending P31, yes, it's still true: about 2K from 26K database elements has not yet set up P31 because they can't be inferred from the source database with some practical meaning. But anyway the elements are populated with enough data to be useful at any point of the future. Olea (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  •   Delete still too rudimentary and malformed. It's unclear if it could even be salvaged. --- Jura 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


Wikimedia topic category (Q59541917): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I think Wikimedia category (Q4167836) is sufficient --- Jura 10:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Will take care of them when it's decided to delete them. --- Jura 11:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia set category (Q59542487) was created with the same intention I think. I am not sure whether we should try to replicate these Wikipedia categorization concepts here, as Wikipedias often fail to implement it properly anyways and it is very difficult to verify the applicability of these P31 values for all sitelinks connected to an item. Using Wikimedia category (Q4167836) instead would probably just do the job. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If someone found a good way to sort through these, I don't want to undo their work. Still, I'm not entirely convinced of its feasibility. To some extent, "category contains" and "category combines topic" do the same. --- Jura 13:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Campsites in SwedenEdit

Hi @Draceane, Hazard-SJ:, I disagree with the decision to remove this campsite and other campsites in Sweden as it fills a structural need for Wikivoyage where articles with links to Wikidata objects nearby is something that is very useful. E.g. campsites along a hiking route or near a travel destination. Sometimes the condition 2 of Wikidata:Notability e.g. when the campsite is within a natural reserve and described in geodata dumps from the Swedish authorities (its a material entity) is also fulfilled, but not always. See Wikidata:WikiProject Shelters.--So9q (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I see referencing issues here. Is there anything available about these campsites beyond private Facebook groups and Google Maps links? —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


Q61763856: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails notability guidelines, no sitelinks. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


Sheik Ibrahim Basha (Q99670934): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Prahlad (tell me all about it / private venue) (Please {{ping}} me) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


Q48789505: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unsalvageable article on eswiki Born2bgratis (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)