Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Requests for deletions


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. As the gadget does not do this yet, 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 July 21.

Requests for deletions

medium

~72 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 }}.



Q30277524Edit

history (Q30277524): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of History (Q309). --Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
History (Q309) is ambiguous: it refers to the academic discipline and "the past" as the object studied by this discipline. history (Q30277524) represents the object studied, science of history (Q1066186) the academic discipline. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with History (Q309) covering both the academic discipline and the actual "past". I don't think the concept of the actual "past" needs a separate article on any wiki. And 30277524 doesn't have any entries. I'm not sure what would be the benefit of a wikidata item representing the actual "past". What would be an appropriate link to 30277524? I think the problem is the items linked to it should be linked to 309 instead. So that's a merge I guess. Thus, I think 309 and 1066186 are the same thing. So distinguishing the three German terms of history, historiography and science of history need explaining to me, see below. In general, I don't have a problem with having multiple wikidata items for different concepts, just with not with the same label. And the descriptions should be very well written to help differentiate between them. Mnnlaxer (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The German wikipedia article is explicitly about "Geschichte" (history) in the meaning of past events as remembered by humans, not about the academic discipline (which has an own article in the German wikipedia). We could move the German sitelink at Q309 there, but there is still no easy way to keep the interwiki-links afterwards (redirects could be a solution).
As to items using "history" in the meaning of past events as remembered by humans: there is history painting (Q742333) which is characterized by having those as its motif (but not the academic discipline) and contemporary history (Q186075) being a subclass of history (but, at least regarding the description, not of the academic discipline).
As to the same label: well, that is the crux of the problem with homonyms, but I agree that the descriptions could be better and I'm generally not happy about the situation involving those items - there is definitely a lot that could be improved. I'm just doubtful if merging/deleting would be a solution. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I've reached my limit of understanding wikidata, so I'll leave the difficult decisions on merging or deleting to you and others. I primarily wanted to bring up the issue. If you want to talk about better labels and/or descriptions, I'll continue to help out. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you and I think you are right to raise this issue. I passed it to Talk:Q309. Additional thoughts about this could be helpful to improve the situation. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia having one article for history in the meaning of historical past events, one article for history in the meaning of the academic discipline and one article covering both meanings. But there are Wikipedias having an own article for history in the meaning of recorded past events (e.g. the German de:Geschichte, currently linking to History (Q309)) and an own article for history in the meaning of the academic discipline (e.g. the German de:Geschichtswissenschaft at science of history (Q1066186)) and there are Wikipedias treating both meanings in one article (e.g. the English one).
If History (Q309) should cover the meaning of recorded past events, History (Q309) and history (Q30277524) should be merged. But this is contradicted by the P31-statements at History (Q309) and quite a few descriptions. If History (Q309) should cover the meaning of the academic discipline, History (Q309) and science of history (Q1066186) should be merged. de:Geschichte could be moved to history (Q30277524) (science of history (Q1066186) refers to the academic discipline studying historical events as recorded in historical documents. The study of how people record and study history would be a subfield of science of history (Q1066186) - history of historiography (Q2699662)) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  Delete per Deryck. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Q29637965Edit

castle (Q29637965): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

This is a non-rigid sortal class intended to collect castles marked as such on OpenStreetMap. A better solution would be to use the property "OpenStreetMap tag or key" (P1282) and mark instances of the other castle item (Q23413) as used in OpenStreetMap with that property. This has been done, for example, for pet stores and chapels. This task would have to be done by a bot, which is above my WD ken. As it stands this castle (Q29637965) clutters up WD. --Wurstbruch (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Until the usage of this item has been cleaned up, this item is notable due to structural need. If you think a bot needs to clean this up, we've got Wikidata:Bot requests where you can file a request. Mbch331 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure nobody will bother to set up a bot for four edits. -Ash Crow (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: --Pasleim (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Pasleim - though I'm disappointed not to have been notified by the nominator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep This both meets our notability criteria as an concept identifiable in an external source; and has a structural use to bridge the single concept in OSM to the four related concepts (castle (Q23413), château (Q751876), japanese castle (Q92026) & kremlin (Q263274) ) in Wikidata. This has already been explained to the nominator (who apparently believes that we can simply bludgeon this into equivalence with just one of those four concepts), on the item's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Will it be a problem if we put OSM tag or key (P1282)  Tag:historic=castle on all four "castle" items? Deryck Chan (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Delete since Pintoch seems to think that's a good idea. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It may or may not be a good idea; it is though orthogonal to the issue at hand, and neither you nor Pintoch have refuted that this concept meets our notability requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete I would do what Deryck Chan proposes above instead. − Pintoch (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Q47528529Edit

Moxie Crimefighter Jillette (Q47528529): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Minor daughter of Penn Jillette; not otherwise notabie. --Trivialist (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my original statement: "Minor daughter" is meant to mean that she is a minor. Trivialist (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Q47528662Edit

Zolten Penn Jillette (Q47528662): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Minor son of Penn Jillette; not otherwise notable. --Trivialist (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my original statement, "Minor son" is meant to mean that he is a minor. Trivialist (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  Question: Is WD policy to avoid having items for under-18 humans who do not otherwise have a public profile? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know if there was a specific WD policy about this; I assumed something like Wikipedia's BLP guidelines would apply, particularly the Presumption in favor of privacy section. Trivialist (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The most important question is: Is being a child of a notable person without own credits for possible notability make you notable per structural need? Mbch331 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep This item fulfills structural need. Like for all living people I think statements without reliable public sources should be removed. --Pasleim (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete as with Moxie Crimefighter Jillette (Q47528529) I do not see structural need for this item. There is no reference showing that the child is notable (in Wikidata or Wikipedia sense of the word). The only reference is a short announcement about date of birth and weight of the newborn. --Jarekt (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • leaning towards   Keep, it fits the conditions of WD:N: point 3 « fulfills some structural need » and point 2 « clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity [...] can be described using serious and publicly available references ». Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete: no sources given that confirm notability, biographies of living people should be respected. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Q17018059Edit

Bones (Q17018059): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

All the instances of "Bones" as a given name were wrong, since it was always used as a nickname, never as a given name. All items have been corrected and there's no reason to keep this one. Sannita (ICBSA) (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Sannita (ICBSA) thank you for the cleaning; meanwhile, if this is a nickname, can't it be use with nickname (P1449)? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It can be used on Bones Allen (Q4941747).
    --- Jura 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: his given name (P735) is Angus not Bones. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm aware that the first name isn't his official name.
      --- Jura 17:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
      • So you know it's not his first name, and that it's not his given name (P735) and still, you are adding it as given name (P735), and on top of that you're doing it in this discussion that was precisely started to avoid doing this. I fail to see the logic. You're really exhausting me, again I'll leave it to someone else. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
        • It seems to be the first name this person generally goes by and it was present on that item before the discussion was started. The use is consistent with that property for other given names.
          --- Jura 04:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Do you have any objection to using this with nickname (P1449) as Nicolas suggested? Mahir256 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
            • P1449 is a monolingual text-datatype property. Obviously, if one is sure that it was also used as for affection or ridicule [1], the text could add it there too. But this wouldn't be a substitute for the structured way P735 does it.
              --- Jura 04:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete given name (P735) should not be used for nicknames and thus the only statement where this "given name" is used is wrong. --Pasleim (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you have any reference for this being a nickname for the case where it's being used? No? ok.
      --- Jura 11:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep. The boundary between a "given name" and a "nickname" is completely arbitrary. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (Q152316) is "Henry", known as "Harry". Harry Andrews (Q1340574) is "Harry" without a long form. The general public consider "Harry" the primary given name of both people. There's no reason why "Bones" cannot be considered a "given name" as long as there are people who use it as their names. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Deryck Chan: IMO, the concept of "given name" and "nickname" can be clearly distinguished. The given name of a person is written down in the birth certificate, baptismal certificate or similar document. All names which are not written down in a official document are in my opinion nicknames or artist names. Do you suggest that given name should be the most common name of a person? In the example of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (Q152316) would you remove all current given name (P735) statements and add Harry (Q668885) instead? --Pasleim (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I think there is a difference between names people use and nicknames people use to refer to others. Anything not on a birth certificate is not used for affection or ridicule.
        --- Jura 06:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
        • So in your opinion a nickname turns into a given name as soon as the named person starts to use the name themselves? --Pasleim (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pasleim: I'm ambivalent about Prince Harry - as I said before I think the distinction between "given name" and "nickname" is arbitrary. I apologise for choosing a bad example where other editors have decided to use formal, legal names only. But look through our other uses of Harry in the "given name" property, it is obvious that we don't enforce this definition of given name (P735) consistently. Harry Frank (Q88574) adopted "Harry" as an adult, probably as a pseudonym (P742). Harry Schwarz (Q65911) is actually "Heinz" by legal name but adopted "Harry" as his preferred given name, probably never making it legal, as an adult. Harry Warner (Q104161) is born "Hirsz" and took the name "Harry" upon immigration to an English-speaking country.
        The use of birth certificates as the standard also breaks down when we start cataloguing cultures where people have given names in multiple languages and unless their birth certificates have been published by someone else we'll never know what's on the certificate. We don't know whether Andy Lau (Q16766) has "Andy" on his birth certificate (even though given name (P735)  Andy (Q13627273) is there). Mandy Tam (Q6748342) has given name (P735)  Mandy (Q283277) even though her election candidate listing shows that "Mandy" is a name she uses in daily life but not her legal name (which only lists her romanized Cantonese name "Heung Man").
        I note that we haven't really started using given name (P735) to catalogue East Asian given names yet, except where associated Wikipedia set indices already exist... that is a nightmare waiting to unfold. Deryck Chan (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, in all "Harry" examples we should replace wherever applicable "Harry" by their legal name. It seems that most of the "Harry" statements were added by semi-automatic tools, most likely by just extracting the first word of the Wikipedia article title. For people from East Asia I think they should not at all have P735 statements with a latin-script value. Maybe I have an overly strict view on P735 but it would be good if people who often work with given names could write a small documentation on what counts as a given name. --Pasleim (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a special property for birth names and official names. I think you are confusing these with P735.
--- Jura 14:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not confusing it. birth name (P1477) is for the full name of a person at birth, e.g. given name plus family name. official name (P1448) is not for people. But as I said, I would welcome it if for example you as an active member of WikiProject Names could write a documentation about what is meant by a given name in Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Withdrawing my keep vote because other editors have found a reasonable way to deprecate this out of use. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Q42079683Edit

see full sample for use of this qualifier on property talk page (Q42079683): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Bogus item used to store usage instructions Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep just restore it at places where it's needed.
    --- Jura 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not needed; and you offer no argument that it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It was needed on the items you removed it from. Qualifiers on qualifiers aren't possible. Why did you remove it while the discussion is still ongoing? This isn't helpful.
        --- Jura 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Please provide diffs showing where you claim I removed it from items while discussion is ongoing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete bogus --Pasleim (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete Replace it with mass entering it as Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) value is perfactable, useable, braveable and greatable, good luck, chicken tonight. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment so the idea is to convert it to Wikidata usage instructions (P2559). Maybe we can a bot maintain that and keep Q42079683 to collect new translations. The bot can then copy them into P2559 to expand every use of the texts. If Q42079683 is edited, the bot could update them. Sounds like something for DeltaBot.
    --- Jura 06:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikidata is the right project for storing translations of phrases. It is also against the idea that Wikidata is a secondary database and does not host original research. Concering maintenance by DeltaBot, you can submit a pull request. --Pasleim (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Properties and their descriptions have to be create to allow Wikidata to fulfill its role as a secondary database and, yes, it is meant to be multilingual. As Deltabot might take time to have this set up, I suppose we need it in the meantime.
        --- Jura 13:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree we need properties and multilingual descriptions thereof. But this is not a justification that we need to create items to store translations for internal scopes. Translations are stored on translatewiki.net, on subpages created by the translate extension and in various templates. --Pasleim (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support. Find a more elegant way of doing this. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions? Do you support the P2559 solution as well?
      --- Jura 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure anymore. Withdrawing my vote. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Q19609968Edit

Amazone (Q19609968): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for one undefined of the Amazons (Q134154), thus failing criterion 2 because not "clearly identifiable" Marsupium (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Already identified, through the use of Sandrart.net person ID (P1422). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment well this case is certainly weird, this amazone is both undefined and identified (which are not contradictory, despite Marsupium (talkcontribslogs) comment), I'm leaning more towards   Keep but not strongly. Cdlt VIGNERON (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, VIGNERON: The Sandrart.net record is for a generic Amazon, citing two text passages where artworks are described that depict a generic Amazon. In that way we could in my eyes see it either as a duplicate of Amazons (Q134154)/http://ta.sandrart.net/-person-3561 (that is our item for the Amazons/a generic Amazon) and merge it into that item or regard it as a disambiguation item, mark it as n/a on Mix'n'match and delete the item. To handle external disambiguation record IDs this way was also the small consensus (of two) at Property talk:P1422#Disambiguation records?. I'd prefer not to accept the ID at all just as we don't accept GND ID (P227) "name" entries and VIAF ID (P214) "undifferentiated" entries (see Property talk:P227#Explanations). Otherwise, what shall we say the item is about, especially what instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279)? Thanks in advance for pinging me on reply! --Marsupium (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Q50700279Edit

Tanel Joost (Q50700279): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I can't see the notability Infovarius (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Infovarius: I can't see why it wouldn't be notable. See WD:N, clearly, a person is an « identifiable conceptual or material entity » and there is a « serious and publicly available reference » ; plus « It fulfills some structural need ». What and where is the problem of notability? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Is Kes on kes? Eesti 2000 (Q47088720) a good authority? I know that many "Who is who" books are just payable opt-in lists (you pay - you are included). Additionally, User:EV100 leksikonid, who imported from there, admits that "A lot of "items" what I created are just father or mother somebody and nothing more". Are all "fathers and mothers" of our items notable just by this fact? --Infovarius (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: WD:N doesn't requires « good authority » just « serious and publicly available reference », this book is obviously a « publicly available reference » and I don't know for the « serious » part but without more informations, I assume good faith. « just father or mother somebody and nothing more », isn't it exactly what the « some structural need » notable criteria is here for? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Q23931078Edit

capuronii (Q23931078): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doesn't meet WD:N. Please see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject Taxonomy#Is capuronii (Q23931078) a taxonomic_patronym? --Succu (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

99of9
Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy --Succu (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete I think creating items for patronyms is over the top and creates ambiguity within the database. Take this search based on your patronym, only one of these is named as per your refs. The rest are named for oother people, in other references. If you want to record a name is a patronym then do so in the binomen and record it as an additional information point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Faendalimas: Please could you relate your "over the top" assessment to our notability criteria? As for your "oother [sic] people" point; no claim is made that this is the only eponym called "Capuronii"; you're quite welcome to contribute to creating the others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: I never mentioned WD:N that was you and Succu. however, if that is needed. I feel that this item cannot be restricted as is under point 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. in that no singular instance of a species name can be clearly identified without reference to its genus, ie binomen. As I pointed out this patronym could refer to a dozen or more species. Further to this under point 3. It fulfills some structural need I do not see any value for this without it being restricted by its binomen, hence my suggestion to instead of creating a unique instance for this word, it would be better to add this information to its binomen. Considering the structure of this database the ambiguity of dozens of identical words (yes they would have different q numbers) that differ only in their reference, could be better stored hierarchically. So I still favor to delete this item and move the information contained into the binomen. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Faendalimas: And nor did I claim that you mentioned WD:N; I did, quite clearly. Since that is the policy by which we decide what to include or not in Wikidata, I asked you to relate your "over the top" assessment to it, since such an opinion is not the policy... ditto. I note your view on a "reference to its genus", but I do not see that criterion anywhere in WD:N; and nor are we discussing a "singular instance of a species name". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
          • You are most definitely using a singular instance of a species name. Names in biology first and foremost follow the principals of nomenclature, by adding the reference that states who it is named after you have attached the name to its concept. In nomenclature it is therefore a singular item. It does not matter how many species a person has named after them species names are always singular by definition. As for the genus being required to specify the species name, again that's how nomenclature defines names, as a binomen. Hence presenting it as a mononomial is incorrect under the code. Stating that it does not say a genus is required in WD:N is irrelevant, and a strawman. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Not every eponym, for a given namesake, correlates to a single species. Nothing is being "presented as a mononomial", and - again - Wikidata is not bound by "the code". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a formal entity, just a random word. It is not an eponym. The references that have been provided have no bearing on the concept (such as it is); they refer to other concepts. There is no structural need (Andy Mabbett only feels a need since he misunderstands the basic nature of Wikidata items on taxa). - Brya (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

attenboroughi (Q51343038) has the same issue. --Succu (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) PS: Project:Do not disrupt to illustrate a point (Q4657775)

Q27882203Edit

lead (Q27882203): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Nonsense duplicate of lead (Q708). Do not merge. Leyo 14:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The links may be fixed to lead (Q708). --Leyo 15:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Egon Willighagen, Sebotic: Just to let you know as you contributed to this item. --Leyo 12:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it should likely not be merged, but isn't lead (Q27882203) simply not the substance lead, rather than the element lead, which is lead (Q708)? Please hold of deleting lead (Q27882203) until we confirmed it is not a sustance consisting of lead. Looking at all the identifiers, it might just be that... but I need 15-20 minutes to inspect the situation properly... (I hope to find this time today...) --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Lead is just a chemical element, not a substance. I checked several other chemical elements and none has an item as a substance. --Leyo 20:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the delay. But I now had time to look into it. Following some of the identifiers, it suggests this item can be the substance, aka "bulk lead". Wikipedia has both of them (element and the bulk) described on the same page. I suggest to keep lead (Q27882203) as the bulk compound lead. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Was is a bulk component supposed to be chemically? Are you referring to the lead(II) or lead(IV) ions? --Leyo 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem here is broader than this particular element. On various WikiProject Chemistry pages we tried to establish a model for chemical elements and there were proposals that we should have e.g. two (or more in some cases) different elements for every chemical element: one for 'simple substance' (portion of matter composed of only particular chemical element atoms/homonuclear molecules) and the other about 'chemical element' (all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus) or 'chemical element atom'. We haven't reached any consensus in this matter. Wostr (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To me such a distinction does not seem to be useful or needed. --Leyo 09:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll just link to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Proposal:Models in case you or someone else would like to take part in discussions about problems related to this request. Wostr (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leyo: We need 2 items to distinguish the concepts of chemical element from chemical compound/simple substance. A chemical element has no boiling point, only one chemical compound/simple substance can have some physical properties. A chemical element is the set of atoms, without any interaction between them. A lead atom in a lead piece and a lead atom in the car battery as PbO2 have similar properties as chemical element but not as chemical substance/simple substance. The 2 items are necessary to avoid properties mixing and wrong inferences. Snipre (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
What the heck? Chemical elements surely have a boiling point (see e.g. en:List of elements by boiling point). --Leyo 08:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leyo: Wrong, dichlorine has a boiling point, not chlorine. You mix 2 concepts, chemical substance and chemical element. And if you have some doubts, just try to provide the electrical conductivity of carbon as element: what is the correct allotrope to choose define chemical element's properties ? Snipre (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you found two exceptions. There is no similar thing for lead. --Leyo 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's give the question back: what is the electrical conductivity of carbon as a chemical compound? It depends on the modification.
Sorry, but obviously chemical elements have physical properties. Item lead (Q708) for the element lead already includes all properties of the bulk material, like, density, melting point, boiling point,... so there is no need to have another item lead (Q27882203) for the bulk material. Does Wikipedia distinguish between lead as an element and lead as bulk material? No, properties of the bulk material are within the article for the element. As Leyo said there is no need to distinguish between chemical element and chemical compound and have 2 Wikidata items. regards --Bert (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Bert.Kilanowski, Leyo: Wrong, physical or chemical properties of the bulk can't be applied to other forms of the chemical element involved in molecules with other chemical elements.
Just an example: we create link between chemical element and the molecule using has parts of the class (P2670). Look at ethanol (Q153):
ethanol (Q153) has parts of the class (P2670) carbon (Q623)
ethanol (Q153) has parts of the class (P2670) hydrogen (Q556)
ethanol (Q153) has parts of the class (P2670) oxygen (Q629)
But the density of diamond has nothing to do with the one of the carbone involved in the ethanol molecule.
And by the way which physical properties do you want to add for carbon or sulfur as these chemicals have several allotrops.
According to IUPAC and this is the definition used for chemical element, a chemical element is a specie of atoms. And apart noble gas, all other chemical elements are creating some kind of structures which are the reason of their physical properties. Boiling point or electrical conductivity are not properties of isolated atoms but only of bulk. So we need to separate bulk properties from properties of set of atoms due to the fact we create links between items according to some definitions. I don't care of Wikipedia because WD is a different project with other goals: one of these main goals is creating connections between items by respecting rules and logic, this is called ontology. Snipre (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is only valid for the few elements that have allotropes, but not for all others. --Leyo 09:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leyo: And what's about the other arguments, the most critical as they are the base of links between items ? What is your concerns to consider in a different manner all atoms included the ones involved in compounds with others chemical elements and the ones which are forming a bloc of matter composed only of one chemical element ? The physical/chemical properties, like boiling point or electrical conductivity, of pure chemical element can be applied only to the second group, not to the former because atoms of different chemical elements linked inside one compound don't share those properties. Just explain me how you can consider that the chlorine in one molecule of sodium chloride can share in any way the properties of dichlorine ? So if we apply your system we should delete all links like the ones I described above for ethanol. Creating links creating association or inheritance. Snipre (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This probably isn't the place to have this discussion, but it is not true that there are only a "few elements that have allotropes". Every element has at least 3 distinct "pure substance" forms (solid, liquid, gas); additionally under different temperature and pressure conditions most solid elemental substances transform into different molecular arrangements and crystal structures (even hydrogen metallizes at high pressures). There are only a limited number of elements that have multiple stable forms at room temperature and pressure (STP) but that doesn't mean the other forms don't exist! Now, it's not clear to me that Wikidata needs an item for every phase and molecular arrangement or crystal structure of every element, the question is here whether we should have separate items for the element and the main STP phase (if there is just one). It might be ok to add properties like density (P2054) and melting point (P2101) on the element and just require qualifiers if there's ambiguity. On the other hand, having exceptions where those properties don't make sense on the element means we have an inconsistent ontology, which makes use of SPARQL etc. more difficult. That said, the present state of lead (Q708) and lead (Q27882203) is a mess, and should be cleaned up somehow! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Definitions get more specific with time, there might be a reason to keep both lead. Wikidata improves with more specific definitions.
  • Examples: rocksalt (rock), sodium chloride and halite (mineral); kaolin (rock) and kaolinite (mineral); aluminium (element), aluminium (native, mineral) and steinhardtite; arsenic (element), arsenic (native, mineral) and arsenolamprite; non mineral > valid mineral > polytypes
  • --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Leyo: Can we close the discussion now ? Snipre (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, right after deletion. --Leyo 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Q51749474Edit

S.W.C. - Stepney Workers Club (Q51749474): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty David (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not empty any more. I don't know this shop to know if it pass the notability criteria or not. in Wikidata:WikiProject_Companies/new_company_items it have a lot of company in the same situation. - yona b (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose two weeks without any comment. - yona b (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  Support not notable --ValterVB (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@ValterVB: do you propose to delete all the items in Wikidata:WikiProject_Companies/new_company_items with 0 sitelinks? - yona b (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
If they haven't reference it's better delete them. Some item have only P31, totally useless in this state --ValterVB (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Family of transEdit

Q51728530Edit

Nancy Gillespie (Q51728530): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? (is she notable only because she was married to transgender?) Infovarius (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And their 3 children. --Infovarius (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Q51728629Edit

Amber Beatie (Q51728629): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? (is she notable only because she was married to transgender?) Infovarius (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet: Mahir256 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Those items fulfill a structural need. They are needed to store the family relationships of a notable person. The articles on the French Wikipedia and the Esperanto Wikipedia use Wikidata to request this data. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we double (triple, quadriple) the number of person items by creating spouses-mothers-fathers of each because of "to store the family relationships of a notable person"? We should decide - either all, or none (I mean those without sitelinks of course). --Infovarius (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes we should, there is no other way to save family data about a notable person. This page seems to support my opinion. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if a "structural need" should be sufficient to allow the collection of private information about non-notable living people (especially underaged ones) in a public database, ready to be linked up with more private information. Here I think that other standards should be met to prove that those items are really relevant (especially good public sources) - I see no reference for such information like the birth date and the birth place of the children. If we allow items for non-notable living persons, we should be a bit more considerate with their information. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  Keep people are notable when they can be describes by serious sources. They don't need to be "important" by some standard to be notable according to our policy. ChristianKl❫ 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There is still no source (serious or not) at Amber Beatie (Q51728629), Susan Juliette Beatie (Q51728689), Austin Alexander Beatie (Q51728692) and Jensen James Beatie (Q51728694). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Q49376233Edit

biathlon (Q49376233): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There is already Q166788 - and other than written in the discription of Q49376233, Q166788 IS actually the main item for overall biathlon. There is actually no item for the Winter version of biathlon, but for the Summer version(s) without snow: Q2801174. So Q49376233 is definetly useless and doubled to Q166788. Merging is not possible. --Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC) no longer in use —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What makes write that Q166788 is the "main item for overall biathlon"? How would other people find that?
--- Jura 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Marcus here; right now it is not clear what the purpose of the nominated item is, which unlike other types of sport items subclasses event (Q1656682), but not sport (Q349). Maybe it could serve as a superclass to biathlon (Q166788) and summer biathlon (Q2801174), but do we really need that? Reminder, mostly to myself: there is still some work to do at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Sports#Multiple sports disciplines. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It was the superclass to those two until someone deleted it.
--- Jura 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. Yet the question remains whether we need it. Apparently it serves as a class of sports which are held as a multisport race with two disciplines, right? Would duathlon (Q429006) also be a subclass? Is “biathlon” the correct term for this concept?
It would be great if we could either link this item to some external resource that provides a proper definition, or find another way to identify multisport races with two disciplines (e.g. count has-part or sport relations for instance; we discussed this aspect also in the previously linked discussion). —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I created mainly because summer biathlon ended up in winter sports. Maybe it's just that "winter sport" can't be determined through subclasses.
--- Jura 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Good point (in spite of [3] which was an attempt to organize types of sports which were lacking a subclass relation; meanwhile I’m wiser, I think …). I would still favor a direct subclass definition of summer biathlon (Q2801174), without biathlon (Q166788) (as you argued) and without the nominated item biathlon (Q49376233). I understand your intention, but it really looks like an artificial container. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It would make sense to have a main identifier - this ist Q49376233. I see the problems and we could create a subqualifier for the Winter biathlon. It would be no problem to make subqualifier for all special forms of Biathlon (Summer/Winter; Rifle/Air rifle/Arrow; Ski/Rollski/Cross running/Bike). Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: I’m confused now. Does this mean that you’d like to withdraw your RfD for this item? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No. That would not make sense. There are 2 items for the same thing. But it would make sense to create Subitems for the specific Subdiciplines. So we would fix all the other problems. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
So you would create a new one, move some (if not most) of the content of Q166788 there and then merge this with Q166788?
--- Jura 10:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Q32858142Edit

no label (Q32858142): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

An anon user removed the sitelink commons:Commons:Bienvenido, which is a translation page of Wikimedia:About (Q4387616) if I get it right. This item would thus not be notable. Does it have any special need? @NikkiMisterSynergy (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It have another one no label (Q32858152). i don't really know if those item are needed or no. - yona b (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
we have many similar items, see e.g. [4] --Pasleim (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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), 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 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 [5] do not appear in the infobox at [6]. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (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)

Q52008165Edit

Property "unit symbol" (P558) (Q52008165): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I don't think we should create items for properties. If we need to link to a property, we can create properties with datatype property. --Pasleim (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC) --Pasleim (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  Support the only problem is that it is link from 220 items. do we have a way to massive-remove it? - yona b (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jarekt: --Alaa :)..! 07:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That was the only way I could think of I could reference that the statement was imported from other statement of the same item. It was suggested that I should use inferred from (P3452) instead of imported from Wikimedia project (P143), but both of them take item not a property. If there is some standard way of adding sources pointing to another property within the same item, than we can requast bot run to replace the references and delete the item. --Jarekt (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The label might need another text. Wikimedia import URL (P4656) or deleting it entirely might be alternatives for the use case. As this type of conversion happens occasionally and can be see in the edit history, I'd delete it.
    --- Jura 05:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Q15407973Edit

Wikimedia disambiguation category page (Q15407973): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Could we replace this with the general category item? It seems to be used for categories that actually have articles in them.

--- Jura 12:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  SupportMisterSynergy (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose - useful. Remove the cases where it is used incorrectly. Lymantria (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose per Lymantria. And @Jura1: I don't think that Q8229605 is a regular category - it is just a mixture of different things... --Infovarius (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why would sitelinks about different things be on the same item?
    --- Jura 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: because even the one sitelink can be about different things. --Infovarius (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Q41697445Edit

WhatsApp Messenger Android app (Q41697445): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No differents from WhatsApp item — Dimon4ezzz 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Keep I see no reason why we can't have items for the various different versions of a software like WhatsApp. ChristianKl❫ 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  Delete No need to do such separation for an App that not more than 1K users to maintain. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  Keep, seperate concepts. 78.55.177.69 11:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  Delete. Duplicate of WhatsApp (Q1049511), which already states that it is a mobile app (Q620615) and contains the same Google Play Store App ID (P3418). Keeping it would imply that we need different items for each platform version of the same software (here, WhatsApp (Q1049511) mentions 6 platforms). -Geraki (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Lexeme:L478Edit

Duplicate. Danrok (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since it isn't possible to search Lexeme namespace yet, can you mention which Lexeme it duplicates? (It can't duplicate an item as those are 2 different things). Mbch331 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Danrok: Mahir256 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Danrok, Mbch331, Mahir256: it's a duplicate of Lexeme:L467. But it should be merge rather than deleted (but merge is not ready yet, I've asked on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Merge.js. I guess the best would be to wait until merge is possible. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Lea Lacroix (WMDE):: What do you think is the best solution? Waiting till merge is possible? Do you expect that to be possible soon? Mbch331 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It is up to you. My best guess right now is that we can have merge capabilities in around 4 weeks. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  On hold till merge is possible. I think we can overcome a period of 4 weeks. Mbch331 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
See my section on the project chat https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Duplicate_Lexeme_entities,_and_what_to_do_before_merge_&_redirect ·addshore· talk to me! 08:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Q47465285Edit

Avatar (Q47465285): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  •   Keep it's about a film
    --- Jura 05:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Q47470076Edit

Jaali Rumal (The Knitted Handkerchief) (Q47470076): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No references in this article, so this is no reliable source. Have a look at w:Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- MovieFex (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Q47465117Edit

Sudhamshu Joshi (Q47465117): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Q47465246Edit

Arpan (Q47465246): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  •   Keep it's about a film
    --- Jura 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Still no sources. -- MovieFex (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Q47465141Edit

Ishwor (Q47465141): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is nothing. -- MovieFex (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  •   Keep it's about a film
    --- Jura 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Still no sources. -- MovieFex (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete Jura1, this film doesn't really exist, it's just a HOAX of IMDB. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • How did you arrive at this conclusion? Do you have anything to support it?
      --- Jura 07:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: Before such comments, can you please just Google this name to find senseful references? If that even can't show at Google, then how do you think that such hoax items are just allowable because "it's a film" lucky reason? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, being indexed by whoever isn't a requirement. Please don't misquote me. How is Amazon's IMDB relevant to your explanation?
          --- Jura 06:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete. I've reviewed the discussion above and lean towards the conclusion that this film didn't actually exist. If another editor can show me external evidence (IMDB or elsewhere) that shows this film exists, I'm happy to change my vote. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Deryck Chan, Jura1: What do you think of this page? I don't know how much of it is true... --Okkn (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Looks legit but the year is different from that on the item. Changing to   Neutral. I have left a message to the item creator. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I think MovieFex attempted to have the list at enwiki deleted, but failed.
        I can understand that it may be difficult for some to conceive that are films that aren't available at Amazon's, but be reassured, it exists and that's when Wikidata starts getting helpful.
        Obviously, it's sub-optimal when films lack their original title. Isn't this the film where an excerpt is available on U-tube? Maybe @Bipin Sapkota: can help us.
        --- Jura 15:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete per liuxinyu970226, there's no film called this name existing, thus this item is rather like an original research. --218.68.229.42 01:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe you can answer the question liuxinyu left open? What do you make of the link provided?
      --- Jura 06:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: While I don't know who is this IP user, should I consider your question as "hey, we should create 65535 billion items, and should never delete them because 'they are films'!"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
        • In case you missed it. The questions I think remained open: "Do you have anything to support it? " and "How is Amazon's IMDB relevant to your explanation?". Maybe you can answer the additional question to the IP too. Btw, I think you confused film and item about a film.
          --- Jura 15:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps any of @Biplab Anand, BRPever, Nabin K. Sapkota, Nirmal Dulal, Bijay chaurasia, Pitambar Bhattarai: can help us resolve this case or find someone else who can resolve this case once and for all. We definitely need better references regarding this film's existence and its characteristics than just film database entries and questionable snippets from YouTube. To those I have pinged, the sorts of references I am looking for are similar to those I added to Chhori Buhari (Q47465325), excluding those references to a Wikipedia list page (which I will remove soon). Also to those I have pinged, this is a standing request to you and other Wikimedians from Nepal that if any other Wikidata-related event in Nepal is to occur of a similar scale to what happened on January 20th/21st, you must inform me or Jura about it so we can potentially monitor what is going on as it happens and so we can prevent a further deluge of deletion requests due to the incompleteness of items. Mahir256 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a note on WikiProject Movies would be helpful. I don't think I want to have to monitor every editathon. After some re-factoring, I think the one in January did give some interesting entries. Obviously, it's more difficult if there aren't plenty of sources. I'd rather fix a few entries than have people wait till they think they get it perfect.
--- Jura 06:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Q28824100Edit

Part of Your World (Q28824100): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blank Shizhao (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: Thoughts on this and the two below requests by @Shizhao:? Mahir256 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I created these while cleaning up song-items with multiple performer (P175)-statements indicating performers of different versions. I just checked if a version by this performer exists and can't say anything about their relevance beyond that, but they seem notable by being clearly identifiable and helpful to name different performers without messing up the item about the work/original version. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mbch331:, so that you are aware of @Valentina.Anitnelav:'s comment and can decide whether to undelete the appropriate items. Mahir256 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure a cover on YouTube is enough to make an item notable, so I restored the item and added it here so the notability can be discussed. Mbch331 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Q23010193Edit

Fairfax Asia (Q23010193): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No wikipedia article linked, no source in the entry (discovered the entry from Alltrust Insurance Company Limited (Q23010725) which listed Fairfax Asia (Q23010193) as shareholder without source; end up only find out the shareholder was cited as Fairfax Financial (Q1393210) (or its branch or its China-incorporated subsidiary and namesake) I am not sure we should have every non-notable division and subsidiary of every notable mega-conglomerate, but such item may be more effective to merge with Fairfax Financial (Q1393210), rather than over preciously list out the most accurate corporate structure that list out every legal person in en:Matryoshka-like line of ownership, unless have external source and the intermediate holding company had potential content as least as part of a section of wikipedia article. --Matthew hk (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 6 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Q52229854Edit

Android Application Runner (Q52229854): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No item used -Zest (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zyksnowy: Thoughts on this and the other deletion requests from @-Zest:? Mahir256 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps @-Zest: can explain in Mandarin the issues with @Zyksnowy:'s items, either on Zyksnowy's talk page or here? Or perhaps someone else (@Shizhao:, maybe) can do the same? Mahir256 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Android Application Runner is the type of software for BlueStacks安卓模擬器是藍疊的軟件類型。--Zyksnowy (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zyksnowy: 明白,不过你创建的这些项目没有任何链入或外链,其他编者查证不到,也不知道应该怎样使用这些项目啊。请看Wikidata:Notability/zhDeryck Chan (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
能直接用中文真好..安卓模拟器 跟video game console emulator (Q1196126)游戏机模拟器类似的 “安卓模拟器 和 BlueStacks”“游戏机模拟器 和 VisualBoy”这样类比
前段时间腾讯和网易也都开发了他们的安卓模拟器“腾讯手游助手”和“网易MuMu模拟器”[1]只是我觉得他们可能抄袭蓝叠的--Zyksnowy (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. 网易MuMu模拟器_网易MuMu模拟器官方下载【安卓模拟器】-华军软件园

Q55327492Edit

Otis Sudeikis (Q55327492): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

4 year old "actor, director, producer, screenwriter and activist". Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  Keep per Jura1 above, we should keep such film-related items separately, there should never have any deletion possibility for them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this reason too laugh to be useful? --117.136.55.109 02:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55236988Edit

Open Educational Resources (Indian River State College) (Q55236988): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No incoming links, no references, only a website. Not notable. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oa01: Thoughts? Mahir256 (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: The webpage is a bibliographic entity. Traditional bibliographic databases such as WorldCat include metadata records for this type of information resource. See, for instance, series of pathfinders from Cornell University or Greenville, South Carolina represented in WorldCat:
Perhaps people involved in the WikiCite initiative would be interested in this question too? -- Oa01 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55368564Edit

no label (Q55368564): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. -- FriedhelmW (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC) ed. 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oliviervd: could you add some external references? --Pasleim (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Q50822451Edit

list of Doctor Who serials (Q50822451): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused wikimedia list without wikipedia articles CENNOXX (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
WTF. If the wikiproject subpage exists as a local maintenance page, there should be no item about it in the main space. If its purpose is encyclopedic content, then it falls out of project scope and should be deleted (along with the item about it). In both case, I think this item should be deleted. -Ash Crow (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep I restored the sitelink to a reference list at Wikidata.
    --- Jura 06:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Q14210115Edit

Natural Reserve of the Lagoons of Santo André and Santa Sancha (Q14210115): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q10359752 --Andree.sk (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have related but different topics: a lagoon and a natural reserve. -Ash Crow (talk)

Q55413935Edit

Pierre Henri Blanchet (Q55413935): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There's no sitelinks available in this item, All articles and/or data for this link has been deleted. Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: আমার মনে হয় তার উল্লেখ্যযোগ্য আছে, কারণ তার তিনটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ তথ্যসূত্র শনাক্তকারী আছেMahir256 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: দয়া করে উল্লেখযোগ্যতা চেক করুন, আমি খালি আইটেমটি সরাতে অনুরোধ করেছিলাম। Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems useful to me (if only, to qualify the professorship (P803) on Antoine Masson (Q780559).) -Ash Crow (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55441082Edit

Alana De Roma (Q55441082): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No identifiers or references, not used on other items, no sitelinks, I could not find a singer with this name on the web Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably the one mentioned in the description of The Little Mermaid : Part Of Your World - One Line Multilanguage w/ *Subtitles* (Youtube) is meant. This alone still not enough to be kept I'd say. --Marsupium (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC), 11:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the hint. I found a Alana de Roma who performed this song, has an imdb-id (nm0211212) and appeared in Amy (Q4749060) in the main role. I suspect this one is meant. I changed the label from "Alana Romana" to "Alana de Roma", added these informations and think that she is notable, now. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nathaniel Oldham (Q55445723)Edit

Non-notable person. No sitelinks, no external identifier, no structural need. There's a reference to an old census, but that only shows that he probably existed, not that he was notable. Ghouston (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  Keep I'd say http://discovery.civilwargovernors.org/document/N00002900 is enough to fulfill criterion 2. --Marsupium (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  Keep I would generally argue that for living persons there's a higher threshold of "notability"; for those who are deceased I think any reference to a reliable source should be sufficient, though we very likely would want to exclude the complete contents of a census for example. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Q32289392Edit

Maderö (Q32289392): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

See Talk:Q32289392 geonames error imported to WD --Salgo60 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Salgo60: Thanks for getting it deleted on GeoNames! (We do need to clean up stuff on GeoNames ourselves if we are going to get rid of all of the cebwiki duplicates.) If you adjust the cebwiki article on this item to be a redirect to the right page on cebwiki for this island, then I can safely delete this item. Mahir256 (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I have created a request see ceb:Hisgot_sa_Wikipedia:Embahada#Geoname_error but the activity feels rather low on this wiki. I feel more than lost in this language version - Salgo60 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Q30439806Edit

Kris Sinioras (Q30439806): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a notable person or actor. The article on him in the Greek-language WP has been deleted after discussion for lacking notability, and as purely self-promotional.

PS. Was this item deleted and recreated right afterwards? [7] ——Chalk19 (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted and restored by @HakanIST:. -Ash Crow (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the item per discussion.-- Hakan·IST 05:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Empty items from manual merges to duplicatesEdit

Please delete Q29437150, Q21491748, Q21507862, Q12806810, Q4418482, and Q28753048. The are leftover from manual merges to duplicates (for some reason the merge tool didn't work).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Q15913833Edit

Prince Li (Q15913833): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not sure which one it should be about, moved dab to new item
--- Jura 20:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4387763Edit

Prince Chun (Q4387763): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Seems to have been split, moved the last sitelink, which was a dab
--- Jura 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55278724Edit

Omnicron (Q55278724): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Apparently this is cross-wiki spam. Of course this will remain on hold until all sitelinks are deleted, but better to keep it here so passers-by know about it. Mahir256 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@HakanIST: As you've been nuking the linked pages slowly, can you delete this item as well once that's done? Mahir256 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256:, I'll keep an eye on it but will have to wait for sysops of non-gs wikis to delete themselves.-- Hakan·IST 19:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Q47487059Edit

Kyuhachi Kusaka (Q47487059): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Satdeep Gill (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Q50339681Edit

kulturnoe-nasledie.ru (Q50339681): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Former website of p1483, --50.254.21.213 14:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
the URL has been reused, *www dot kulturnoe-nasledie dot ru/ but it is not the same site, web page, or use, as described in Q_50339681.
a saved copy of the main page in the Internet Archive, *https://web.archive.org/web/20120915094451/http://kulturnoe-nasledie.ru:80/
the label conflicts with the property.

50.254.21.213 12:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

this may explain things, *https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasledie-archive.ru%2F
and which makes the statements for the old URL web page, not for the current page which is not even the same site subject.

165.20.114.246 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55590042Edit

Sunday Ingbede (Q55590042): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty David (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Q16049060Edit

no label (Q16049060): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplication --Peacenwar (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) It appears that there are three pages for this individual on Wikidata (Q16049060, Q16074687, Q55594063), and 2 on Wikipedia (1 & 2). Please merge them.

  Comment Q55594063   Merged into Q16074687, Q16049060 should wait until merged on fawiki. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4818445Edit

Attila Szervác (Q4818445): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self promotional item with the main contributor being the subject of the item, and all/most sources beeing self created. The main source is the photo of ID card. --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Has a Commons sitelink. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55600248Edit

Kantor, The Dead Class (Q55600248): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There's no sitelinks available in this item, All articles and/or data for this link has been deleted. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 20:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Q30026710Edit

Lona-Lases (Q30026710): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It doesn't exist Syrio posso aiutare? 11:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Elaborating better: there is a municipality called "Lona-Lases" (Q200925), made up by the villages of Lona (Q55651778), Lases (Q55651739, which is its administrative center) and a few others; a single village called "Lona-Lases" (Q30026710) doesn't exist, the page was created by bot on ceb.wiki in a slapdash way. --Syrio posso aiutare? 13:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Syrio: The history of the GeoNames item on which the cebwiki page is based suggests that it was Istat (Q214195) who added it eleven years ago. If you can adjust the cebwiki link to redirect to another page, or request its deletion to @Lsj:, and then delete the item on GeoNames, I will then delete this item. Mahir256 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I wrote him on ceb.wiki! --Syrio posso aiutare? 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q40676142Edit

Benoit Soubeyran (Q40676142): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q26207216Edit

Michael Peel (Q26207216): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep Meets uncontroversially notability criteria. Not sure I understand why it was deleted at the first place, and I support Pigsonthewing (talkcontribslogs) on the merge proposal. --Joalpe (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q23041483Edit

Daniel Schwen (Q23041483): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q28831222Edit

Metadata with Personendaten and beyond (Q28831222): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q55472693Edit

Marco Fossati (Q55472693): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q42078140Edit

Manavpreet Kaur (Q42078140): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disputed notability. Item was previously deleted but undeletion was requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard --Pasleim (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Q27576859Edit

Terry Ananny (Q27576859): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Specifically because of Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Ananny. --Jay D'Easy (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Already kept two times: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2018/05/08#Q27576859. Created by LTA is itself not a reason.--GZWDer (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

55663966Edit

no label (Q55663966): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of no label (Q25527702). --Виталий Болбас (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12158792Edit

no label (Q12158792): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12136583Edit

no label (Q12136583): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12115521Edit

no label (Q12115521): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12109335Edit

no label (Q12109335): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12107197Edit

no label (Q12107197): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12095997Edit

no label (Q12095997): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12095973Edit

no label (Q12095973): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q12082533Edit

no label (Q12082533): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4514621Edit

no label (Q4514621): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4445966Edit

no label (Q4445966): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q30890631Edit

no label (Q30890631): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4309221Edit

no label (Q4309221): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4308330Edit

no label (Q4308330): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4242364Edit

no label (Q4242364): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4213985Edit

no label (Q4213985): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4208510Edit

no label (Q4208510): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4205599Edit

no label (Q4205599): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q15041912Edit

no label (Q15041912): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q4084139Edit

no label (Q4084139): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Удалена. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 13:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Q29053991Edit

Totur river (Q29053991): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Не нашёл. I don't found this river. Мастер теней (master of shadows), 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)