Open main menu


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

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

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

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

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

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

Add a new request

On this page, old requests are archived, if they are marked with {{Deleted}}. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at April 24.

Requests for deletions

medium

56 open requests for deletions.

Contents

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}Edit

RequestsEdit

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



Example biographiesEdit

Q29962164Edit

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

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

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

Q30049473Edit

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

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

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

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

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

~410 Azerbaijani filmsEdit

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

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

Q15348443Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q57823196Edit

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

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

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

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

Q40985505Edit

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

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

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

Q55687191Edit

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

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

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

Q61446814Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Q22284875Edit

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

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

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

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

The content of Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) should definitely not get removed until the deletion request is decided. But we have to decide if a station with a part for the S-Bahn (Q95723) and a part for the regular railway should have two separate items or not. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I would propose to stay only with item Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q567079) and to remove item Berlin Jungfernheide station (Q22284875) as the Berlin S-Bahn (Q99654) of Berlin has only combined items with S-Bahn and Train. There are only separate item for Berlin U-Bahn (Q68646), see also item Berlin Alexanderplatz station (Q698497), Berlin-Friedrichstraße railway station (Q702402) or Berlin Hauptbahnhof (Q1097). --GodeNehler (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the case here, but S-Bahn stations are quite often treated as separate stations from the main line stations, they share the name with, if they don't share any track infrastructure (which is the case here). So, I guess, we should keep separate items for all three stations (main line (Q3238851), S-Bahn (Q95723) and rapid transit (Q5503)). --MB-one (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Q59783740Edit

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

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

I guess it is supposed to be a qualifyer and is used as such.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Guye, this value is for Property:P1480, the English label has already been set.--Arbnos (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Arbnos: sourcing circumstances (P1480) is where I discovered this item. Just to clarify, Q59783740 didn't have an English label until Arbnos added one. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Q55110029Edit

Aptychi (Q55110029): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A cephalopod subclass called “Aptychi” does not exist, BioLib entry 133763 is wrong. “Aptychi” is simply the (latin) plural of aptychus, which refers to particular fossil body parts (i.e. the assumed lower jaws) of Ammonites. Aptychi itself is not even considered a parataxon but the aptychi are subdivided into several paragenera (which is rendered correctly by BioLib). Since there is already a Wikidata item on “Aptychi” (i.e. Q352138), item Q55110029 may be deleted. --Gretarsson (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Q60497063Edit

Tsar of All Russia (Q60497063): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No such title Infovarius (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment @Infovarius: what about en:Tsar of Russia? @Ghuron: who used it on several items (maybe incorrectly, to be checked). And pinging the creator @Милан_Јелисавчић:. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
During the Tsardom, there was no Russia in the modern sense. First there was Grand Duchy of Moscow, then Tsardom of Moscow (although in the enwp it's calling "Tsardom of Russia"), then Russian Empire, and so on.
The true name of the title was "Царь всея Руси" (Tsar of All the Russias/Tsar Of All Rus'), or "Государь всея Руси" (Ruler of All the Russias/Of All Rus'). --Wolverène (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverted my edits. @Infovarius: who was Peter The Great before becoming emperor? --Ghuron (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Царём он был (Tsar of All Rus'). Infovarius (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Q62017979. --Wolverène (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Q16416540Edit

Q16416540: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No sensible info, just a Property:P131 (is in administrative unit), so there is no possibility to disambiguate from items with same name. Paulbe (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Q22302160Edit

descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160) is an attempt to make any item a valid unit for quantity datatype properties. However, according to the data model, quantity datatype with units represent physical quantities, thus the unit should be considered to be a physical unit of measurement (Q47574) as well. This directly contradicts the intention of the item descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160), which aims to define entities such as sled dog (Q28997), helicopter (Q34486), or country (Q6256) as valid units.

Instead of using arbitrary items as units, I suggest to omit the unit in the quantity datatype statement for dimensionless quantity (Q126818), and to use a qualifier that describes the entities being quantified with the quantity datatype statement. Maybe we could use of (P642) as a qualifier, but I am open for other suggestions or a specifically designed new property instead. Here is an example from Q1044197#P1083:

The current situation is as follows: descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160) is used in only 15 items, which are used 2815 times as units (in mainsnak or qualifier). According to this query, there are in total ~30.700 uses of 590 different units which are not instances of subclasses of unit of measurement (Q47574)—out of 15.7M unit uses in total (i.e. 0.2% of all units are formally invalid in the physical sense right now, and only ~1/10th thereof actually makes use of descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160)). Substantial amounts of wrong unit uses could be repaired automatically (which I hereby offer to write a script for).

Ping editors of Talk:Q22302160: @Jura1, Yair rand, Tpt, Sänger, Circeus; there was a preceeding discussion at Wikidata:Forum (German project chat) yesterday. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Until we know how to go about the clean-up and someone actually doing it, I'd keep the item. I think the approach outlined for Sanger should work.
In the meantime, I don't think the item should be a subclass of unit. This would be wrong. --- Jura 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, this item does not appear to be actually in use for its intended purpose (if it were, you'd think it would be on more than ca. 15 items!). And that's assuming that the example claim of is genuinely a problem. Currently the software fails to register any error for this sort of stuff and actually allows (as far as I can tell) any item as a purported unit. I have used tipped-in page (Q17109349) and Roman-numbered page (Q56761382) too, for example, when documenting paginations, and the only thing that ever got in the way was bots. Circeus (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Various approaches to cleanup are possible, but I don't think one gets around attempting to identify each item that is used as unit by a limited number of categories: Q22302160 is one of them. --- Jura 19:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Jura... could you please start by answering clearly:
    1. what is the purpose of descriptive item used as unit (Q22302160)?
    2. Watever that purpose, how is that purpose actually accomplished?
    Without these answers, it is impossible for anyone who wasn't involved in... whatever this is to comprehend what the hell is going on. And I include myself in that category! Circeus (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think a good assumption is that any item which is an instance of (a subclass of) unit of measurement (Q47574) is a sane unit item, and all others should be checked. This means that ~620 items which are used as units are okay (and they make up 99.8% of unit use), and the other ~590 items need to be checked because they are not okay (they make up only 0.2% of all unit uses). Complete unit use can be queried fortunately, thus we do not need categories such as Q22302160 to identify non-units which are used as units. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem with using such items as units, instead of specifying them with a qualifier. --Yair rand (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • aircraft (Q11436) and the like are not physical units, thus those "units" are not valid according to the data model. We all just use them colloquially as "auxiliary units", although "86 aircraft (Q11436)" is a dimensionless physical quantity with the dimensionless unit "1". In Wikidata, we represent this by omitting the unit in quantity datatype values. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I see. In that case, if a qualifier is to be used, I don't think it should be of (P642), which would be too ambiguous. Perhaps a new property could be created, something like "quantity of". --Yair rand (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete Anything and everything can be used as a unit, the imho most used item was not even connected: association football pitch (Q8524). This item is completely useless, nobody was able to give me any comprehensible definition, it's just clutter. The sooner it's gone, the better. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Up to now nobody was able to give a valid and comprehensible definition of this thingy. Without a consensual and clear, unambiguous ans usable definition this item should be deleted better sooner then later, as it's of absolutely no use. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: As you seem to be the only one, who sees something useful in this whatever, could you please elaborate, what the exact definition and use case for this item should be? Without such, it's nothing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delete per Sänger. Circeus (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

How long do such request linger here, before any action is taken? There was no such thing as any argumentative pro, there was never any comprehensible definition, this item ist plain and simple useless clutter. Why is it so hard to delete it? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Delete obviously per previous discussion, VIGNERON (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Q62097109Edit

Complementarity and ontology : Niels Bohr and the problem of scientific realism in quantum physics (Q62097109): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self promotion? same as at Don A. Howard (Q62096486) Jasc PL (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tend to   Keep as theses from other repositories have been imported into Wikidata. I wonder if anyone will do PhilPapers next. Mahir256 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, it's not a malicious edition but first trying of new user having good will and needing some help to improve it. --Jasc PL (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Q50376746Edit

Louis Vuitton Foundation (Q50376746): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

The item is duplicated with Louis Vuitton Foundation (Q3075489) --Muimota (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like an attempt to split a museum and the building it's housed in. Ghouston (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree.   Keep -Ash Crow (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Q17005689Edit

Black company (Q17005689): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It can be merged with sweatshop (Q1415635) because it's almost same as Q1415635. --Siramatu (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose. Almost the same is far from good enough, and if at valid it should be address on the local wiki's, not here. No ground for deletion at all and a merge is impossible while there still are wiki's with entries for both items. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 08:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Q2734947Edit

toxic asset (Q2734947): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It is same as bad debt (Q1365583) --Siramatu (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Q2734947 has valid entries so should not be deleted and the items can't be merged because there are local wiki's with entries for both. If this would be the same, those have to be merged first. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 08:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Q5200535Edit

Cyprus whip snake (Q5200535): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It's conflict with original item that linked with wikispecies Q3033908 --Mohanad Kh (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It's one now --Mohanad Kh (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Q62562769Edit

Niccolò Bertrucci (Q62562769): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy David (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • He seems to be present in many library descriptions. Balabinrm (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep notable enough per the notability policy (WD:N) criteria 2 as there is « serious and publicly available references ». Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep A person from the past described in many later sources. Lack of interwikis still doesn't mean insignificance. --Wolverène (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Q62569945Edit

Shelf:History (Q62569945): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q175361 --88.105.193.238 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose, there is another entry for enbooks in the target item. Issue should first be addressed on enbooks. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 10:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Q52225598Edit

Deconinck (Q52225598): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Useless: This is nothing: no article (There are several Belgian people with that family name; they have their own articles) and no disambiguation (that's already Q28019428) Erik Wannee (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is the person whose archives are described at [8]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Q1318254Edit

Rennell Islands (Q1318254): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty. Non-existant Island group. Already deleted in de. --Dandelo (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Q55363092Edit

Q55363092: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplikat Gabriel Kielland (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gabriel Kielland: What does it duplicate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No answer, so keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Q61450573Edit

Aladim (Q61450573): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It was duplicate of Q61430543 Stegop (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
So why didn't you merge them, @Stegop:? - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 05:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Cycn: beacause I couldn't, don't ask me why, so I moved the only item it had. --Stegop (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I see; Q61430543 has a Property:P460 linking it to Q61450573, that blocks any merging. It also suggest the items are similar, but not the same: The spellings are different, so by default thesee Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) items should stay separate, like the other spellings. I've undone the manual merge for now, but I see your intent: the ptwiki doesn't have interwikis on it without this merger and the other pages don't have a link to the ptwiki dp. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 08:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Q62606236Edit

Cross-wiki spam created as part of spam campaign by globally locked sockmaster Shaunak Chakraborty. Non-notable poet, please hold pending deletion at local projects. Hiàn (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  On hold. Waiting for deletion on another project. Esteban16 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@अभय_नातू: Can you help us out on mrwiki? Mahir256 (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Q19377787Edit

Chelation (Q19377787): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merge with Chelation (Q319827) --84.209.154.184 11:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Keep doesn't seem to be the same thing, and even if it is the same thing, then merge and not delete. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Q5330832Edit

Easton (Q5330832): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q7083744 (formerly separate enwiki articles, since merged). --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So Easton (MBTA station) has been merged with North Easton station, but Q7055286 contains North Easton station (MBTA)? That doesn't seem a correct merge. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 07:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I've checked and the merge was between a former station en:North Easton station and a proposed station en:Easton (MBTA station), and there is a different station proposed with the name en:North Easton (MBTA station). I don't think that merging like that helped making things cleared. - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The former North Easton station and the proposed Easton Village station are co-located; one enwiki article has covered them for over five years now. The proposed North Easton station is at a different site. That's the fault of the transit agency, not us. Please stop messing up things on multiple wikis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Q2899600Edit

Bertrand Latour (Q2899600): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Per ticket:2019040410007121; “personal information which is incorrect (erroneous date and place of birth, false occupation, etc.) and violates my privacy and my "right to be forgotten"”. Please ping me when you are closing the request, so I can inform the subject. Bencemac (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Keep Clearly notable subject. Content issues should be resolved without taking the "nuclear" step of deletion. As for "false occupation", we use writer (Q36180), which is what both reliable sources and his own website: [9] say. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Q61043828Edit

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

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

  •   Keep Clearly notable subject (and one who self-publishes [10], [11] much of what we say about them). Content issues should be resolved without taking the "nuclear" step of deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Q20908055Edit

Equus asinus somalicus (Q20908055): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Correct taxon is here: Q603135 Adam Harangozó (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Q20908055 is about the incorrect taxon, is that why it should be deleted? - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 12:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q5009914Edit

CDCa1 (Q5009914): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Pardon my Wikidata indiocy. Item Q5009914 seems to have been created by mistake. It's supposed to be a human gene, but there's no data because it's not a real gene name. The correct gene is at C2 calcium-dependent domain containing 4D (Q29516200). --Ajpolino (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Q11854565Edit

Boxholms bruk (Q11854565): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The object is covered by Boxholms AB (Q10434045) which describes "Boxholms AB", started as "Boxholms bruk". I suggest that Q11854565 is merged into Q10434045 . --ALLvet (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

As a native Swede I can confirm that these two subjects are closely related, if not exactly the same. The Swedish article sv:Boxholms covers the subject of a specific modern industry in Sweden and also covers its history, while the finnish article fi:Boxholmin ruukki focus on the history, that is the interesting part. I agree they can be merged. -- Sextvå.tvånoll.ettsjunoll.sjufyra (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
So, why don't you merge them, @ALLvet:? - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 12:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q56878736Edit

Sem Título (Q56878736): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No reference. Google does not help find any information about. --Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC) --Hermógenes Teixeira Pinto Filho (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Q29169625Edit

Honkai Impact 3rd (duplicate) (Q29169625): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q29169625 titled: honkai impact 3rd (the cheat money game), conflicts with another article Honkai Impact 3rd, an actual article with contents. Please delete Q29169625. --137.59.101.147 02:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Q55065138Edit

Patrick Sikalinda (Q55065138): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I do not see any notability here. Looks like advertisement. --129.13.72.197 06:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63188658Edit

Q63188658: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty DiMon2711 07:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a couple more of these letters. Notability seems not to be there? Lymantria (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q23009452Edit

Q23009452: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Purpose unclear Swpb (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably same with Q28942359. --Wolverène (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Q22939943Edit

Sacramento, California (Q22939943): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not really identifiable, not in the MoMA online catalogue, probably only was shown in an exhibition? But we will never find out more about this exactly, so better delete it.--Carl Ha (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC) --Carl Ha (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There was an identifier; it probably exists but not online. There's a "Sacramento, California" from 1951 in the list at https://www.moma.org/momaorg/shared/pdfs/docs/press_archives/3575/releases/MOMA_1966_Jan-June_0009.pdf (page 6); http://www.houkgallery.com/exhibitions/dorothea-lange-duplicate-prints-from-the-1966-retrospective-at-the-moma/selected-works?view=slider#74 has an image, which is also at https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3483?locale=en&installation_image_index=8 but not identified. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63216100Edit

Avon River (Q63216100): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable item DiMon2711 14:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

updated with photo on wikicommons and article URL--Renatoongania (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Q28552958Edit

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

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

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

Shimamura Q7496821Edit

Shimamura (Q7496821): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Is it possible to merge the english article on the one side and the german, french, japanese article one the other side in the "In other languages" linkbox ? :-) --Philipp1977 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If you mean English Wikipedia, it only has a surname article, not a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q11773980Edit

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

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

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

Q63284356Edit

TheEnigmaTNG (Q63284356): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty DiMon2711 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63284330Edit

Bishop Studios Austin (Q63284330): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty DiMon2711 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63284249Edit

Q63284249: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty DiMon2711 20:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63283942Edit

Micropterus floridanus floridanus (Q63283942): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty DiMon2711 20:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Q30880184Edit

Q30880184: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A copy of Q19893718; could be merged --Balabinrm (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

So, why don't you merge them, @Balabinrm:? - сyсn - (talkcontribslogs) 06:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63284453Edit

Q63284453: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item. BRP ever 02:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63285112Edit

Isis pessini (Q63285112): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item with label only, not clearly identifiable. BRP ever 02:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63285114Edit

Isis pessini (Q63285114): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item with label only, not clearly identifiable. BRP ever 02:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63285032Edit

T studio and salons (Q63285032): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

No sitelinks or statements, not notable. BRP ever 02:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63271863Edit

John Fortunato (Q63271863): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item David (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q61749161Edit

Q61749161: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item. It contained only a link to a Commons category ("Category:Exterior of the Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino"), which is not notable by itself Superchilum(talk to me!) 07:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63295873Edit

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

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

@四葉亭四迷: Any thought? --Okkn (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
sources [12][13][14][15]--四葉亭四迷 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to make it a lexeme or entity? If entity, you would need to have at least one sitelink. (I don't think other conditions in WD:N will meet either.) If lexeme, it has to be attested and idiomatic. whym (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q59318277Edit

A people's history of the American Revolution (Q59318277): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Completely unreferenced Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q3177707Edit

Q3177707: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet notability. connects to nothing. nothing connects to it. only 2 social media links posted. --Lazypub (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63285298Edit

al9anat.com (Q63285298): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Q63300785Edit

TrustableAI (Q63300785): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Soam Praxidicae (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)