Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata: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.

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 25.


Requests for deletions


~32 open requests for deletions.

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}Edit


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

Artist of Black Lunch TableEdit

After discussion with User:Sjoerddebruin in user page discussion of User:GerardM after some edit of User:Heathart, now I have some doubt about notability of item that are in Wikidata only because they are artists of "Black Lunch Table". I prefere ask to see if community think that partecipation to Black Lunch Table is enough for notability. The following query is a first group of items without sitelink, backlink reference and the only property are: instance of (P31)=human (Q5), sex or gender (P21) and catalog (P972)=Black Lunch Table (Q28781198). Changing a bit the query we can found a lot of other items in the same condition.

So the question is: Are these items notable because they are in "Black Lunch Table" or "Black Lunch Table" isn't a sufficient condition to make notable these item and item like these (see the query result) must be deleted?

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel
  ?item wikibase:sitelinks 0 .
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item wdt:P972 wd:Q28781198 .
  ?item wdt:P21 ?sex .

  ?item wikibase:statements ?statementCount.
  FILTER(?statementCount = 3).

    ?backlink ?p1 ?item .
    ?item ?p2 [prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref] .
    ?ref ?pr [] .
    FILTER (?pr != pr:P143) #no source
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

Try it!

--ValterVB (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

With a notable set of editathons under their belt, the Black Lunch Table has proven itself as a credible project. They use Wikidata as a tool to indicate people who to write about on and off editathons. They do work on adding information to the items involved outside of the actual Wikipedia article writing (multiple languages are involved).

This attack on the Black Lunch Table items is reprehensible. The fact that it is packaged in a query is only a means to show that there are items but it provides no arguments that they are not notable. The only issue is the use of Wikidata. Can Wikidata be used for the organisation of editathons? Yes. Are the people behind the Black Lunch Table doing their thing using Wikidata? Yes. Is there any reason for this nonsense? No. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood my action. Until yesterday, after the previous discussions, I considered Black Lunch Table sufficient to be notable. Yesterday I found an item where Heathart deleted " Black Lunch Table" from an item, so I ask to you (I thought you knew the argument), if it was a correct edit or I was necessary a restore. After a bit Sjoerddebruin write « The "catalog" was subject of discussion on RfD and the project chat. Not sure what the consensus was. » So I had the doubt that not all think that this property is a sufficient criterion for notable. If all think that is notable, for me don't change nothing, I already exclude this kind of item, but if someone delete "Black Lunch Table" maybe it is not clear to everyone. --ValterVB (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like the catalog property is being used incorrectly. As these statements have to go, one needs to figure out if these people are otherwise notable. Given that they have been created some time ago, nothing has been added and the argument in support is mainly one that questions if notability is applicable, I don't see how we could keep them.
    --- Jura 09:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Again   Delete, I don't think it is healthy that some in-crowd project decides notability. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep We don't benefit from antagonising communities such as Black Lunch Table. Being welcoming of people who are interested in doing edits in Wikidata is more benefitial than being exclusive. I don't want to repeat Wikipedia's shrinkage of editors due to exclusivity in Wikidata.
One of the primary reasons why we have notability standards is to prevent to have a lot of items that aren't looked after by human editors because no human editors are interested in their quality. I don't think that's a problem with the Black Lunch Table. There's a good chance that the items on the list have even more human attention than the average Wikidata item that some bot created.
Additionally the Black Lunch Table does deal with people for whom serious public sources can be found, so most of them are notable according to our standards irrespectible of whether they are in the list of the Black Lunch Table. ChristianKl () 15:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I see two problem in this case, 1) they are item used only for keep a "working list", in this state don't add nothing of useful to Wikidata only P31 and P21 2) participation to BLT is not demonstrable, don't exist reference for people connected to "Black Lunch Table"; so any artist want stay in Wikidata simply add P972=Q28781198 and we can't delete him because is part of "Black Lunch Table" (don't importamnt that is true, none can check if is a real statement) --ValterVB (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is kind of the problem I tried to address: only insiders can tell, and this makes the entire setup vulnerable. If some troll came and nominated all the items here instead of starting a discussion such as this one, it would be difficult to justify “keep” decisions—unless the BLT project quickly got references installed. It would really be preferable, even in their own sense, if they did so of their own accord. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Two comments:

  • I’d strongly prefer if we had some kind of external reference(s) within the items which do not have any sitelink. This way we allow every Wikidata editor to work on them based on the references sources, not just some insiders. We do already have at least 20k “John Doe” items with no sitelinks, no backlinks, no identifiers, and no references where nobody knows whom they are about and which problems they have. As a busy deletion admin I see that this backlog only becomes larger, unfortunately, which is dangerous in many regards. So, @GerardM (or any other interested user), can you please arrange that (one of) the future BLT editathlons focuses on the addition of references to the Wikidata items in question to get this solved? If some user nominated 100 items of your collection on this page, neither the admin nor the nominating user would be able to discover references (which isn’t their duty anyway), and the items would have to be deleted as “not fulfilling WD:N”.
  • BLT uses Wikidata as a worklist and might be one of the first projects to do so. I am in general happy with this idea and even like it to some extent, but the way how it is done is alarming. I fear that others might follow and this gets out of control: “Here are 1M items about $SOMETHING and we need this to work on a project, please accept this …” Since such “worklist items” appear in queries as well, side effects can be tremendous and quality control practically impossible.

MisterSynergy (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • to have a proper conversation, let us not conflate two issues. This discussion is about notability of BLT people only. I have added many people on this list when it was set up. I find that it is actively maintained by @Heathart, Heather Hart: the project lead. I have noticed the addition of all kinds of information to items I initiated on behalf of the BLT project. The arguments that are posed are about fear. You fear that is might add a few items gone rogue. You forget that on en.wp there are listeria list maintaining one overall list and lists for specific editathons. So you have it backwards; because they are in specific queries for the project the effects are as expected and quality control is in place. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you explain which external source you get the information from? Why don't you add it to Wikidata? Why do we still have 345 items with hardly any statements, reference or sitelink 6 months after creation?
      --- Jura 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • GerardM, I personally have no doubt about the notability of the items in this set, particularly if you claim that they are okay. But as an admin I would never keep an RfD-nominated item of this set “because GerardM claims it is notable”, when I cannot verify this by myself. It has to have some kind of identifying references (or users who promptly supply them), or otherwise it needs to be treated equally as all other items, i.e. deleted. For good reasons we do not rely on claims by individual editors or WikiProjects here at Wikimedia when it comes to notability evaluation; we rely on external sources instead. I do not see why the Wikidata community should permit an exception here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • When it comes to notability the real problem is that a "name + human + gender" is not enough to uniquely identify a person. I don't think that more information has to be provided immediately but if there will be no information provided that allows us to uniquely identify the people, I'm okay with deleting those on the list who are only "name + human + gender" with no sources or descritions. ChristianKl () 23:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is not me who says so. It is a Wikipedia project leader who says so. Who manages the information using Listeria. There is no problem here; you have an external party and it is not me. You know about the information added, the new articles. The rest is accepting that this is a valid way of managing a Wiki project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with BLT manage information with Listeria but if the information is just a list of names without any information about the people on the list that allows a reader of the list to know which of the people who have that name that's alive or dead is meant, I don't think Wikidata is the right tool for the job. ChristianKl () 16:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As there seem to be no actual references available, this doesn't seem suitable for Wikidata. Commons might accept raw lists.
--- Jura 19:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
When you check the data of this list, you will find that it is actively maintained. That the data is enriched. Articles are written all the time and particularly at editathons. On the one hand it is said that these people are probably notable and, this is supported by the success of this project and at the other hand you insist on "not in my backyard" because it does not fit preconceived ideas.
There are always "good reasons" why you can beat a dog. In the case of the Black Lunch Table it is about a group that received too little attention for the relevance they bring and all you can say is "I can not find the references". The point is that it is not about you but you can observe the growth of this project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
For an Wikidata item to be notable it has to point to a clearly identifiable entity. If there exist two "Chandra Kiran" in the world an item that only contains the name but no information that distinguishes the two Chandra Kirans that exist isn't notable according to our standards even if on an editathon the people who google the name are going to mostly find information about a single person. ChristianKl () 10:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the growth of Wikidata nearly empty items become more and more of a problem: People loose time checking and still have to create duplicates as one can be sure that an item in an imaginary catalogue by GerardM is the same as the one they are about to create.
    --- Jura 06:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I tell you that you apply double standards. First, there is no proof that show why "because of the growth" these few items become extra problematic. You wilfully ignore that these items are actually used and protect the integrity of a living project and that on its own is a reason for notability. You ignore that these items do grow additional statements and articles so there is no issue proving that these are actually used. The notion that this is an imaginary catologue of mine is insulting and not correct a all. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course, the standard for you isn't the same as I already had to clean up your edits before.
Here, I asked you twice for references for your statements and nothing was provided, so my conclusion is that none are available.
--- Jura 19:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
So you persist in making it personal. You persist in not looking at what is observable. I did this to help others out. All your arguments are about is you. How you cleaned up after me.. Possible but statistically irrelevant. I indicated several times where I got my data from and that answer does not satisfy you but that does not mean that it was not given. @Heathhart: is the project leader for the Black Lunch Table. She can vouch for the use of the data, she can inform you that as a result of the use of Wikidata, the quality of the project data at Wikipedia improved. She can inform you that it is now from within the project that Wikidata is maintained. I am not really involved; the most that I do is provide technical support when asked.
It is your attitude that everything has to fit in your perspective, the way that you make a controversy personal that is making Wikidata increasingly hostile. This is detrimental for our project. When people like myself find Wikidata hostile, ask yourself how newbies appreciate these issues. I know that this is to be expected in a growing community but in my opinion you have lost the overall perspective and the result will be a Wikidata that is mostly a stamp collection. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
PS this is the current list of entries of the BLT.
It's just that you should have understood by now that references need to be findable and should be inserted in items otherwise items will be deleted. You can try to spin this in a discussion about yourself as a non-newbie.
--- Jura 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi there, I have only just now been made aware of the questions and this RfD. I have been assisting Heather Hart in implementing this catalog property, with the kind assistance of Gerard. I would like to clarify a few things.
    • Notability: The Black Lunch Table project is curating its task list of Visual artists from the African diaspora. The task list is adjusted and customized for specific events (like museum exhibitions), gender, geographic location. Notability is the first concern, so if Heather removed the catalog tag, she knows within the scope of the project whether the item/person should be included in the initiative. She is coming from within the community, and does outreach at various educational centers and art colonies and art organizations to get the added institutional guidance on notability.
    • Listeria task list: The Black Lunch Table uses the catalog tag as a method of integrating Wikidata into its mostly English Wikipedia outreach initiative to improve the coverage of diverse populations on the encyclopedia. By using the catalog tag, it is possible to collocate the items into an integrated task list that is curated on the very active number of events that are currently being held in North America, but is being potentially expanded to Europe and Africa in the next year or so. See Black Lunch Table event archive. The value of this integration between Wikidata and Wikipedia is key -- and the goal of each Listeria table is to make sure at minimum all columns are populated, though the overarching goal is to have the subjects of the task lists have as complete Wikidata items as possible, which means adding Authority control identifiers from VIAF, filling in available bibliographic information as a way to create a skeleton of a new Wikipedia stub entry, etcetera. So this is a highly organized, highly curated, approach to content curation both via metadata on Wikidata as well as a framework for improving and/or creating new Wikipedia entries.
    • Insider issue: The Black Lunch Table is reaching into the communities of the Visual artists of the African diaspora. It is not an insider issue. I am not a member of that community. I suspect that most Wikidatans are also not a member of that community. But what we are is supporting of highly curated metadata, which is what the Black Lunch Table is working towards as its goal. So I take my cue from Heather Hart and support accordingly, as much or as little. But this is not an insider-outside issue. It is an attempt to address inherent bias within the projects, from within the community that can actually engage and solve the bias and under-representation.
    • External sources: Much of the problem of having one external source of reference for this catalog is actually one of the main goals of the Black Lunch Table project. Much of what is known is not written down, is not covered in mainstream news, scholarly and art resources. Part of the project is holding Black Lunch Table events where oral histories of artists are the framework of the discussion. That is one leg of the project. Another leg of the project is Wikipedia, and addressing representation on Wikipedia, etc. But the actual problem is the fact that the dearth of external sources, even one master one, is what the project is consistently addressing.
    • I am happy to answer any other questions or concerns, but I hope that there is an understanding that this catalog property is working to service a very well-intentioned and (in my opinion) responsibly and important project that has been the first Wikipedia initiative to effectively harness and integrate Wikidata in its project. I hope that this can be embraced as the impact is very positive on all levels, from Wikidata as well as from Wikipedia. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that your use of Wikidata is out of scope. Probably you can add a property relative to BLT in notable item (but I think that p972 isn't the more correct property), but not in item that aren't notable. The other big problem is that none can check if is correct that this people are involved in BLT. Someone can add this property/value in a item also if it isn't a real participant and none can delete it because is part of BLT. If you want add this type of item you must add more that only name and sex. --ValterVB (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
To provide you feedback, with all due respect, I don't think you are listening to what is being said here. This project is completely within scope. It couldn't be more within scope. And again it seems like you are not listening regarding notability. This is not about you checking notability. That is happening from within the community as part of the project's mission. However most of the Wikidata items have quite a bit of information filled in -- the vast majority way more the 4 items -- and when they have pages created, they have established notability. This project is working to establish notability of notable visual artists, so the notability is not going to be chicken-egg. It is reverse. This is totally acceptable and actually it's a great, curated method to onboard people who pass En Wiki notability. If you don't understand these somewhat basic concepts, as they interrelate between Wikidata, Wikipedia, and outreach partners, I'm not sure how much more explaining (which you don't seem to read) or understanding there can be. Please note that the Listeria tables only have 4 columns because that was the constraint of the event, but the Wikidata items typically are quite rich and full. Those that aren't are being addressed by Heather Hart and her studio assistant, who are filling in the information. Lastly, this project has been using catalog for some time now, and it has been okay within the Wikidata community. I'm not sure why this is so objectionable. This model is also being used for other initiatives. So it would be helpful if you could support this versus be obstructive, and hurt these outreach projects, which are ONLY adding content to Wikidata and Wikipedia -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is called "Wikidata:Requests for deletions", if items aren't notable we delete them. Now can you demonstrate who is Katie Mallory (Q28858319) that have partecipate to BLT? Which of these or these? If instead you want to keep this data also witout demonstrable notable, I repeat my self: Wikidata isn't the right tool. --ValterVB (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my delay. I run the Wikipedia project Black Lunch Table. Like GerardM said (thank you) we use wikidata as a tool to query our task list for editathons. We are working slowly but as hard (we have just over 100 articles on our task list) as we can on completing more information for the entries who have been added to wikidata as part of our catalog- I understand as it is now there are many insufficient entries, we hope to complete fleshing out the sub-par ones asap. As for Chandra Kirans, I removed her from our catalog because she is actually outside the scope of our tasks, she does not self-identify as being from the African or Black Diaspora, so although this person is a notable artist, she is not one of our project's targets right now. She was added by mistake. All of the artists on our catalog are notable as far as we have researched, but I understand in order to show that here, we need to complete their entry by adding more information. From now on, when we enter a new record for our purposes, we will also enter their demographic information,etc. I hope that resolves the issue for you all. Our project can be found here and here for more context. Thanks! --Heathart (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
There have been a minority of items initially made without enough statements (ValterVB's query of the 3-statement ones is ~10% of the total), but this is a valuable, ongoing project made by people with an art expertise and a consideration of notability, and they are actively taking steps both to include more statements with new items and to expand existing ones.--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wikidata was used successfully a basis for other editing projects and other Wikidata participants (including myself) supported these. I think they resulted in a increase of coverage of the topics in various languages and Wikidata itself. The main difference between these and the current project seems to be that they didn't attempt to support research on previously undocumented topics. You probably noticed that Wikipedia doesn't allow stubs to be created on these topics even in languages where they have a fairly low threshold. As Wikidata is a secondary database, it doesn't host original content.
    --- Jura 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1Edit

What is a "secondary database", why does it apply to Wikidata and does this actually describe its content? Please explain why this must be so, that this describes all its items and that this is indeed an approach that is to the best interest of Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
At least now we know what point we disagree on. I don't think discussing that is needed to evaluate the deletion of original content.
--- Jura 11:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the goal of the WikiProject. It is not to research original content on Wikidata, but to create and improve Wikipedia articles using reliable sources (news and academic publications) - see w:Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/Outcomes, with Wikidata as a means of leveraging that and organizing the collection.--Pharos (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think anything listed on that page is concerned by this deletion discussion of unreferenced items without any sitelinks, even though outcomes like this don't really reassure. For a project that worked fine with Wikidata, have a look at m:Wikimedia CEE Spring 2017.
    --- Jura 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many roads up a mountain, and while the on Meta CEE Spring 2017 editathon is impressive, a lot of projects work off the Wikipedia:Meetup space, and using Listeria tables to do this is just as effective and helpful as the example you provide. I think the big question is what you require to be changed in order for this initiative -- as well as others -- to continue to use the catalog property. There needs to be a solution that will work. The understanding was the use of catalog was not a negatively impactful usage, it provided the solution to collocating tasks, and allows for the running of SPARQL queries. What is the solution beyond the catalog property? I guess it would be helpful to know what exactly is so objectionable here, so that can be addressed. But deleting this catalog is NOT the answer currently, as it would be very destructive to existing structure that are working really hard to integrate Wikidata into their workflows. I agree many of the people objecting to this usage don't seem to understand the usage here. And most importantly, while BLT is diligently working through Wikidata items to make them as complete as possible, it is a process that is going to take time. If you want to help, you could do research and add Wikidata information to each of the items that isn't complete yet. There's no restriction on that at all. That is what the eventual goal is, to have full and complete metadata on Wikidata so the entries on Wikipedia are super easy to create. But it is going to take time. I wonder if that is okay, if you know that's the goal, if you can give the initiative a break and let them -- and you -- fill in the Wikidata. Unless the goal here is to be obstructive and not encourage engagement with Wikidata across projects. Please explain. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really know. Currently, there are some 600 items at Wikidata without any sitelinks, references or identifiers. Wikidata was set out as a secondary database not to host such worklists. You could create a stub at Wikipedia for each and fill them in later.
    --- Jura 05:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • When it comes to requirements I would like every item to list enough information for a Wikidata user to decide whether when they want to create an item for a person with the same name, it's the same person or a different person. This could be achieved by adding a reference link to an article that mentions the person in question. It would also be great if the description would contain information like "US football player" or "New York artist" that won't take much time to be added but that helps a lot with disambiguation.
Without any information in Wikidata that allows for disambiguation between different people that share the same name, people besides the person who create the item can't effectively contribute to it. I would recommend to give the BLP people till the beginning of February to add enough information for people to be disambiguated and afterwards delete all items that only contain P31/P21/Catalogue and that have no references.
Take Ira Smith (Q6066249) and Ira Smith (Q28910245). How can I know from the outside whether the same person is meant or a different one? ChristianKl ([[User talk:|✉]]) 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: this has nothing to do with the Black Lunch Table and the trust that we need to give for others to make Wikidata work for them. The same can be said with the many people that are included in Wikidata because of science.. How do we know that they are properly disambiguated? We don't but science is "important" and with BLT we are talking "black art". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
If I have an item about a scientist that only stores the fact that they are human and their gender I would also delete it. In reality most of the items we have about scientists do have external ID's that disambigutate the scientist. Interlinking with papers they author is also a way to disambiguate.
Additionally are you arguing that I should know that Ira Smith (Q6066249) and Ira Smith (Q28910245) aren't the same person because Ira Smith (Q6066249) isn't an artist but a footballer and the Black Lunch Table doesn't care for sport? If all the items in the list would truly be black artists, why doesn't the item descrition tell Wikidata readers that the item is about a black artist? ChristianKl () 12:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I just want to pipe in here Jura, ChristianKl & ValterVB et al... I understand that you believe that the items that were created for Black Lunch Table catalog purposes need more information in order to remain in Wikidata, i.e. references and more statements? We would like to try to complete them to your satisfaction. We are a small project and have been slowly expanding these entries. I would like to have a few months to do so as there are currently 1023 people we are trying to complete and really only two of us working on it in the time we are privileged enough to have to work on Wikidata. Currently it is taking us about a week to complete roughly 50 items (I'd like to know exactly how many statements you find satisfactory to complete an entry as this would help us move faster... exactly what do you need for an item to be worthy?), thus we would like to ask for you to suspend your judgement and deletion until June, giving us time to complete your request. We are an active project and invested in diversifying quality Wiki editors and subjects, but we are a small project. We would also like to invite you all to join us and help us complete these items you find lacking, as much of their information is easily available online and we can all help crowdsource a solution and grow Wikidata with worthy entries that are missing instead of deleting them. Thanks for your help!--Heathart (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The core thing that we need is the ability to disambiguate different people. We want to have one item per person in Wikidata and when there are multiple items for the same person we want to be able to merge the two items. I would wish for information that's backed up with references that's enough to tell in an example like Ira Smith (Q6066249) and Ira Smith (Q28910245) whether the two are the same person. ChristianKl () 00:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay giving time till June.
@Sjoerddebruin, ValterVB, MisterSynergy, Jura1, BrillLyle, Pharos: Are you also okay with ending this discussion for now and reviewing the matter in June? ChristianKl () 00:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'm not agree, these items are 9 months old and there are more item that query don't extract. Is more useful a Google sheet. But if other users agree then I do not object and I do not follow these items anymore --ValterVB (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with a point made by Gerard: we should treat these as other items. However, I think that means any unreferenced ones should be deleted. ChristianKl solutions might work, at least if it implies that references or identifiers are added. However, from the explanation given, it appears that this isn't possible for many of the 600 items.
--- Jura 13:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not possible for external people to add the information, but for the creators of the BLT it obviously is. Given that Heathart offered to take responsibility to do that till June, I think that's a working solution. ChristianKl () 17:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fishantena, ChristianKl: and all, Ok, we will work on completing the entries with references and statements by June. Thanks.--Heathart (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given the above compromize mark this as {{Not done}} for now. ChristianKl () 17:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Isn't that your proposal your are closing? June seems just far away. A list of 600 names can easily be stored elsewhere and from a WD point of view it's not needed that items are "completed", but have at least a basic reference.
      --- Jura 18:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not happy at all with this "compromise" imho this is exactly how you keep diversity out of Wikidata. The arguments for quality are flimsy particularly when you consider how bad the quality is in other areas that seem to be good. In a published paper it was stated that constraints work against the diversity of Wikidata. We are doing ourself a disservice by being this brutal. Also the notion that it is "easy" to store data elsewhere is a horrible notion. It means that the queries that are used at this time no longer work. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

{{not done}} because the query at the beginning of this section does not return any items. --Pasleim (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but RfD is not about the query, if you think that the query is the most important part of this RfD maybe I did not say it clear enough: I asked: "Are these items notable because they are in "Black Lunch Table" or "Black Lunch Table" isn't a sufficient condition to make notable these item and item like these (see the query result) must be deleted?" I used the query at the beginning because was more easy the query instead of {{subst:Rfd group | | | | | | reason = }} --ValterVB (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
So let's imagine there is consensus that Black Lunch table isn't a sufficient condition to make an item notable. Which items would you delete? My impression was so far that you would delete all items returned by the query above. Since this query doesn't return any items, no items will be deleted. So the whole discussion here is pointless because independent of the outcome, no action will be taken. --Pasleim (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As usual, all the pages that not fall under Wikidata:Notability. To be more precise, check the item without consider catalog (P972) = Black Lunch Table (Q28781198): it's notable? If answer is yes keep it, if answer is no delete it. Instead if we are all agree that items with catalog (P972) = Black Lunch Table (Q28781198) are notable, we can simply add in Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria that item with catalog (P972) = Black Lunch Table (Q28781198) are notable. For me is the same, but if we keep them I prefere a different kind of property, probably something like participant (P710) or a specific property connected to this kind of event/project. --ValterVB (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Quite frankly, ValterVB you are proving your own point here. I am not sure where it became okay for you to be the sole arbiter of what is notable or not. You recently deleted a Wikidata item on a Brooklyn-based female rapper and underground hip hop artist who also happens to be LGBT. How on earth can YOU be the one to say this person is not notable?!? If I am not doing a good enough job establishing her notability then that is my problem to resolve. But I find it unacceptable that you can put this aggressive stance on an initiative that is trying to fix the extremely biased coverage of gender and diversity on Wikidata. You are missing the point, illustrating the issue quite clearly yourself in showing bias. If you don't understand this that's your problem but you are being obstructive and unhelpful in the extremis here. Please educate yourself. And yes, I am mad. This discussion and your actions are creating problems in trying to improve the community. It is NOT okay to force editors who are doing work in good faith to constantly justify and re-do their work because you don't get this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
See -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The link reported by BrillLyle show the content ot the item (link for admins). The item was created on 17 ago 2017, and never update, it was like hundred of other promotional item delete by admins. I don't understand this personal attacks versus me. Lately I started to suggest to add this kind of exception in Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria, but none answered for now. About " How on earth can YOU be the one to say this person is not notable?!?" simply: item don't report nothing to check who is this persone and what has done. If you create these elements with some reference that show that the person is notable we keep the item without proble, but if you create item like that, it is an item like hundreds or thousand of other items created only for promotionale scope and deleted daily. --ValterVB (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Also quite frankly, Erika, it is not a good idea to contribute here while being mad. So calm down, please.
First of all, we never judge about the notability of a person (or an entity in general); we judge about the item. If an items is deleted “because it does not meet the notability criteria”, then it means exactly that: the item was in a bad condition, not the entity described by the item. It would be extremely helpful if you don’t get this wrong here. (I acknowledge that this is confused often here; partly because of language shortfalls of non-native English speakers, partly because of imprecise wording, and also partly because of a lack of awareness.)
Unfortunately we have myriads of problematic content at Wikidata—I could easily give you lists of hundreds of thousands of items in such a poor condition (no serious identifiers, no sitelinks, no references except P143, no backlinks; basically “fully unreferenced content, not connected to the knowledge tree”, which is an extremely low threshold). This is highly problematic, as there is a lot of wrong information, serious BLP violations, fake items, libel, promotional content/spam, contributions by long-term vandals, accidentally created abandoned duplicates, and so on available at Wikidata; most of the problematic content was imported from Wikipedias (and has already been deleted there), a smaller fraction was explicitly created for Wikidata. This content shows up in queries (and Google searches), so it is not “invisible” just because there are no apparent users such as Wikipedias.
These days, only three admins engage significantly in deletions in fact (ValterVB, me, and HakanIST made >80% of all deletions in the past half year). I have no idea about the workflow of the other two, but from my point of view I can tell you that deleting items is not at all fun, but instead extremely tedious and time consuming. I can sit here for hours, look at highly problematic content and evaluate notability of the items. This is a rather schematic, yet manually conducted (thus inefficient) process, focussing on the condition of the item rather than on the entity itself. There is unfortunately no viable approach how these cases can be discussed in advance of the deletion: we talk about lots of hundreds of items each day (maybe even more than a thousand)—and I am not sure whether we keep up with the emergence of even more problematic cases this way.
So, two conclusions: First, if an item is being deleted and you are not happy about it, kindly ask for undeletion and make sure the item fulfills the notability criteria soon after. That effectively means these days that it should either carry an external reference to a serious source on at least one claim, or an external identifier (which does not point to user-generated content such as social networks). Second, this also outlines the problems with the P972-misuse discussed in this section. Formally, many items of the WikiProjects appear not-notable, so they are permanently in danger of being deleted. I am in general very open for the goals of all your projects, and I even like the idea to use Wikidata to start covering the entities—but I explicitly expect these projects to play by the book, just as everybody else does as well. Otherwise the concept of notability in its entirety would be seriously undermined, which in turn would create lots of problems for this project. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess I could do without the lecture on how to add Wikidata items and how to establish notability. Literally EVERYTHING I do is about establishing notability. I know how to do that and do it regularly. I am also unique as I am predominantly an En Wikipedia editor who has fully embraced Wikidata. I am also working to integrate Wikidata into outreach efforts, which is the issue that I am having with this anti-that approach that ValterVB is embracing so fully. He is, whether consciously or unconsciously, attacking a great effective initiative in its effort to fully integrate Wikidata in its Wikipedia initiative. An initiative that should be encouraged on Wikidata as it improves the diversity on Wikidata. I am super tired of having the same argument here. That's why I am getting annoyed. ValterVB doesn't want to listen or adjust his approach. And you are now supporting that by throwing WIKI:Rulez and lecturing me. That is not helpful. That does not push us towards a better approach or resolution to these actions and the negative impact they are having on an initiative and on editors who are actually adding content to Wikidata -- versus deleting content. I thought this was just an En Wiki virus, but apparently Wikidata is not immune. I've got to say it really sucks. I don't want to have to spend my time on Wikidata defending actually adding good content to Wikidata. I am improving Wikidata here, and would not do anything to hurt the project at all. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And now this is all a moot issue, as User:Multichill has taken it upon himself to DELETE all of the Black Lunch Table tags. He destroyed all the hard work. All of the connective outreach between Wikidata and Wikipedia. I am beside myself. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE: It looks like the massive edits made by User:Multichill to delete the catalog property metadata has been reverted (I think). That said, I am pretty shaken up by the amount of hostility he and other editors have expressed about this outreach work, mischaracterizing it as original research. It's not that at all. So if yet another discussion needs to occur about this catalog property usage, please notify folks who are involved in the projects and let us know what other solutions might be available. But really, my faith in the community has been really shook by this wholesale action. I would like to think that editors are by and large constructive, but this experience leads me to be both wary of doing work on Wikidata and leads me to think that there are editors who are really hostile to using Wikidata in functional ways for outreach. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that's just *very* strange. I had just been looking last night at web info about the very person whose BLT tag was most recently deleted (Alicia Le'Von Boone), and had found evidence of that person's status as a curator at the Brooklyn Museum. I went looking because I find this initiative (and the resistance it's facing) interesting. Unfortunately, I can't seem to add the reference I found to the WikiData page by clicking reference, then adding the property "stated in" and adding the weblink to the museum's current page about Mme Boone. (I get a fun No match was found error. I even added the access date (retrieved property), but it didn't like that link at all. Now, I'm not sure if Alicia Le'Von Boone is more notable than say a regional manager of a paint plant just because she works in culture... still I agree that the initiative looks very interesting. Newbie question: is WP:GNG policy on Wikidata? I'm very surprised that the compromise solution proposed above hasn't been respected.SashiRolls (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Helped a bit with the weblink, see the item. Different reference models are described at Help:Sources, and you can find the notability policy at Wikidata:Notability. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm still trying to grasp what the conflict here is about. @BrillLyle:, is your intention that the worklist definition of catalog(ue) amounts to the noun: "Now usually distinguished from a mere list or enumeration, by systematic or methodical arrangement, alphabetical or other order, and often by the addition of brief particulars, descriptive, or aiding identification, indicative of locality, position, date, price, or the like" (per OED), or are you using it as a verb: "trans. To make a catalogue or list of; to enumerate in catalogue form" (ibid)? If the issue is simply that BLT needs to preserve the list of items to work upon, there must be many other ways to do so without conflict. At WP, it would simply be a matter of doing it outside the mainspace. @Multichill: I'm rather startled that you think it's acceptable to announce this intention at Property_talk:P972 and execute it barely 24 hours later, particularly at a time when many people are on holiday. It simply does not seem well considered. Perhaps it's normal on wikidata, but to a wikipedian it is a shocker. LeadSongDog (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The idea of catalog, which was actually suggested with consensus to GerardM as a solution when proposing a different property didn't work, is similar to a card catalog in the world of library science and metadata. It is a tag that can be used to collocate under one property (catalog) the association of the collection (or Wikipedia and Wikidata project in this case) to one entity so SPARQL queries can be run to create automated task lists which are pulled from Wikidata into Listeria tables. The catalog property makes it possible to query by location and if the editathon event is a gendergap focused one, by gender, as the Black Lunch Table holds events across North America with plans in 2018 to expand to Europe and/or Africa possibly. See Black Lunch Table event archive. All of this work is being done in a fully transparent manner, with multiple discussions on Wikidata. I mean, see discussion above, where the project was given a six month period to work on underpopulated items. This project, by the way, is minimally staffed and not fully funded by WMF (and only with rapid grants for minimal incidentals for events). So the idea is that it is already in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table space, but it is driven by Wikidata as a way to incorporate -- and indeed encourage -- integration and connections between Wikidata and Wikipedia (and vice versa). Actually there was no conflict until now. This has been working really well, and has become a model for other initiatives that are wanting to create task lists that are query-able, as a model for what I am calling Wikidata-in-a-Box for editathons. Again, it's a super constructive, functional thing. But it hinges on the query. Without a tag no query can be run. If there is an alternate solution, that would be helpful, but this was already resolved and consensus was established that "catalog" would be a solution. Please let us know if you have further questions. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we have details about the funding of the Wikidata part?
    --- Jura 08:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Although I am aware that you did not like my previous comment, which explicitly was not meant to be a “lecture”, I post another one. As I have outlined above, the approach which was taken here creates serious strain for the Wikidata project that several editors find unacceptable. It is also obvious that the Wikidata community has not yet agreed how to solve this case, so the comments made and actions taken appear somewhat incoherent sometimes. BLT is (one of) the first project(s) to use Wikidata like this, so it is now the project who has to deal with the difficult pioneering role to set things up.
To get things sorted, I summarize the issues of the taken approach (again):
  • On notability: BLT more or less explicitly requests to establish notability by itself. As of now, BLT appears to be a WikiProject in English Wikipedia, so this approach is pretty much at odds with the general notion in Wikimedia projects that notability is generated by external (i.e. non-Wikimedia community) agents, and that notability has to be indicated via use of references to external sources. While I personally trust the editors of BLT that their items (maybe with some exceptions) are in fact notable due to the availability of external sources, I nevertheless formally expect to have these references in the items—this is what we expect from all other editors and projects as well, and this request has been formulated several times in this thread.
    The reason for this is threefold: First, while BLT seems to be a project on solid grounds, others with less credibility might follow and the taken approach could tear down all notability barriers that currently protect quality and maintainability of Wikidata. Second, notability needs to be to a large extent evaluable automatically, so we cannot accept exceptions like “consider claims Px:Qy to be always notable”. It just does not scale. Third, all items should be editable by all editors, so it is crucial that one always can easily identify which entity the item is about. If you don’t add external references (or Wikipedia sitelinks), this is pretty much impossible based on sparse generic information such as names and very basic claims.
  • On tagging: in the main namespace (i.e. items), we do not add “banners” such as enwiki does on article talk pages, or categories that explicitly relate items to specific WikiProjects until now. There are a few exceptions like the recently created Wikidata project (P4570) which is for structural items, but BLT now requests to do this on a much larger scale. This also comes with problems: who is eligible to modify the items and the membership to this catalog, and who can verify this? Items do not belong to editors or projects, so anyone can do this—but the approach taken appears to build walls around the items tagged with the WikiProject item. Nevertheless, such an approach might be the only viable solution here, since there is apparently no other way to capture all items in scope of this project with queries. However, I suggest to propose a new property such as “managed by WikiProject” with item datatype to do this; we would also need to set up new policies how this property would impact notability, and which other implications came with such a claim.
  • More technically: the way how the catalog property is used by BLT is technically incorrect, which was mentioned several times and very early as well. Catalogs are typically qualifiers to catalog code (P528), or used in exhibition items, but not standalone on items about humans. Editors who spend a lot of time to fix wrong property use are not happy if we allow permanent exceptions.
MisterSynergy (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What strain exactly does the Black Lunch Table present to the Wikidata community? I find this baffling, as the project is only trying to be constructive, and is only working to implement Wikidata as part of its efforts. BLT and Gerard and I are contributing a ton of free digital labor here. I don't see that being rewarded or recognized. It is great work that I am proud of.
  • There was consensus, but suddenly there seems to not be consensus. This is problematic in the extremis as Gerard and I worked to find a solution, were told the catalog property was an approved solution, and then suddenly has become an issue.
  • Everything the project is doing is following to a letter the idea of notability. The goal is that the Wikidata scaffolding for the resulting Wikipedia pages has the ability to meet Wikipedia notability requirements as well. It is the overarching goal, in everything BLT is doing, to establish notability. So lecturing about BLT trying to meet this requirement seems very circular and unproductive. That's what they are doing.
  • Do people outside the visual artists of the African diaspora community need to be able to understand notability that is being curated from these communities in an effort to improve diversity and gender gap on the projects? I would posit that standard notability is the goal. The curation happens all the time in outreach. If it comes from within a community of experts and/or people with this knowledge-base, what gives Wikidatans the right to curate this as well. That is the power and importance of the Black Lunch Table project. They are trying to do this for the projects. To meet basic notability. They don't need Wikidatans to double-check the work. It is arrogant to think that this process needs to be intruded upon when BLT is very clear about notability, and does that as their project mandate.
  • The biggest problem here has been there has been disparate conversations in multiple places within the Wikidata project, so it has been very difficult as a stakeholder to follow and respond to questions. This is a problem with both Wikidata and Wikipedia.
  • I am not going to respond to Pigs' comments below as he is trying to bring his discussion re: notability into this property issue, and it is not making resolution easier. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Neither your presence nor your field of work create strain here, of course. We like both and recognize your work. The items itself create rather little strain which is definitely repairable (complement references, and figure out a P972 alternative for an automated migration of the project tag claims). For items yet to be created, please seriously consider adding references during the initial setup directly after item creation—this would help a lot to reduce the strain on our side.
The major problem is all about the approach which was taken, particularly how the current situation with unsourced items threatens the concept of notability (which is a powerful measure to protect quality of Wikidata), and how a couple of hundred items reported in this section stand for quite a while now in the way of effective handling of actually problematic content (which means deletion in most cases). If we permitted BLT to do take this approach now, it would become increasingly difficult or even impossible not to permit others doing the same in future, and consequently to maintain Wikidata’s quality. I do not expect all subsequent projects to be as good-faithed as BLT; I even expect that some are not going to be good-faithed at all, but this is unfortunately not always clear at first sight.
Wrt the controversial tagging with P972: if nobody else does, I will propose a new property this weekend. It will *not* establish Wikidata notability (i.e. serious external references would be required regardless of its presence), and it will *not* imply any editorial priviledges for the project it references to. It would just be a handle to perform simple queries for item management inside the project. This idea has some support as I also read on the wikidata-l mailing list, but I am not sure whether it will ultimately be a successful proposal. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"a ton of free digital labor here" We're all putting in a lot of digital labour; please see en:Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Begging for mercy. And please explain explicitly how these items meet our notability policy (and don't be surprised that they are deleted if you can not or will not). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
We are not Wikipedia and the linked page isn't even Wikipedia policy or a guideline. I think "I need more time to work on it" is a fine argument if it's sincere. We don't need to import the hostile culture of Wikipedia deletionism here. ChristianKl❫ 15:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Three straw men on one post. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2Edit

"You recently deleted a Wikidata item on a Brooklyn-based female rapper and underground hip hop artist who also happens to be LGBT."

For the avoidance of doubt; none of the following confer notability:

  • being Brooklyn-based
  • being female (nor being male)
  • being a rapper
  • being an underground hip-hop artist (indeed, being "underground" is most likely contrary to being notable, in a given sphere)
  • being LGBT (nor being heterosexual/ cis-gendered)

Our notability criteria are:

  1. one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, etc.
  2. a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity... in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
  3. fulfills some structural need

So how did this item meet our notability criteria? Under which criterion? Based on what evidence? And how was that evidence shown in the item? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Erika has replied to this post in the section above saying "I am not going to respond to Pigs' comments below as he is trying to bring his discussion re: notability into this property issue, and it is not making resolution easier. " Aside from the fact that my name is not "Pigs", it seems clear from that, that she either can not or will not demonstrate the notability of these items. This is a core mater for Wikidata - we only have items that demonstrably meet our notability policy. Accordingly, I suggest that we delete all those with no external ID, structural use (e.g as the authors of notable works on which we have items), or sitelink. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be some off-wiki canvassing; see Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Related discussionEdit

Participants in BLTEdit

Maybe already asked before, but exist some list that demonstre that artist xxx is or was part of BLT? Because also if to be part of BLT is accepted for notability, is necessary find some reference that shows the connection with BLT. --ValterVB (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I think we need to do more thorough cleanup of these items. Last time I checked, there were some 600 items with any reference, identifier or sitelink. Apparently references can't be found or couldn't be found and rather than creating stubs on Wikipedia, participants just fill talk pages here and deny that references would even be needed.
    --- Jura 10:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I only see 67 items today using a query which is very reasonable IMO. If I’m not wrong, the number was at around 200+ a couple of days ago, so I do not see any reason to increase pressure in this question these days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
      • It does seem to have reduced, but depending on how one measures, there still seem to be some 200 items (from 600 in December, 50% of all BLT items). Given that Gerard seems to work on the assumption that 6% of statements in Wikidata are errors and some proponents of BLT work under the assumption that references don't need to be findable, I think we should move these out of Wikidata. Items can easily be created on article creation (are we regularly do that anyways).
        --- Jura 07:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
        • +1 --ValterVB (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Moving what out of Wikidata? The 67 items, or the 200, 600 or all BLT items? --Pasleim (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
            • All item not notable for Wikidata guideline but useful for BLT. --ValterVB (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Well, okay. What does not meet our notability criteria? Above, MisterSynergy provided a query with items not meeting our notability criteria. Jura1 responded that it depends on how one measures there are some 200 items not meeting the criteria. So which items are now considered to be deleted? --Pasleim (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                • No sitelink, no backlink, no reference that show who is the person in the item. --ValterVB (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
                • if useful to BLT then notable per "3. It fulfills some structural need" i find the biting of projects trying to use WD to build content unhelpful. Slowking4 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @BrillLyle, Heathart: If you can add any sort of online link to information about these artists on their items, be them social media links, online database identifiers, or even personal websites, it will be quite helpful and will strengthen to some extent any arguments you have as to their notability. Us Wikidatans uninvolved with BLT going URL hunting by ourselves could very easily turn up information about the wrong people; for example, Edward Cruz (Q22349293) could refer to any artist—how do we know it's not this person? A similar argument holds for all the other artists. You, being most qualified to determine for certain who these artists are, should at least help us resolve ambiguity as to who they are even if you don't put every single facet of information about them in their items yet, as the insertion of said links provides at least a starting point for further expansion beyond just knowing certain characteristics that could apply to many more people. Mahir256 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Another batch of this type of titem is expected to arrive: Grant and discussion, I have not seen discussions on Wikidata and the problem of notability that I asked at the beginning of the discussion isn't resolved. --ValterVB (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@ValterVB: Sigh. I think it's clear from the discussion above that Heather from the Black Lunch Table was given a 6 month period to resolve any issues about notability due to Wikidata items needing more information. The very kind editor Pasleim has also addressed items that don't have enough items which should improve the concern you raised. Beyond this what more can be done? What would you like to see happen, for BLT and other outreach initiatives to go away and not use Wikidata as a semantic backbone of their work to establish notability? I am very exhausted by your continued fixation here. I am sorry that it seems that you don't feel that your concerns about notability have not been addressed adequately here, but at this point it seems like this might be part of a bigger issue of concern you have about Wikidata notability than about this specific outreach initiative. I am also very confused by many of the comments here that seem so against outreach and improving both Wikidata and Wikipedia content. That is very concerning. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So you ask a special rule that for this type of item: "is necessary wait 6 moths before take any kind of action" Then why when I have proposed to add in Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria this type of item, nobody accepted? It is a simple and clear rule and avoid a lot of discussion on these items. I'm not against these types of items, I'm against item that I can't check what/who is the subject of the item. --ValterVB (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it is clear that no consensus was reached that BLT items are notable per se. But I also think that none of the current existing BLT items should be deleted because they all meet at least one of the notability criteria regardless of their affiliation with BLT [1]. --Pasleim (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Just to clarify: so if an item have only catalog (P972) = Black Lunch Table (Q28781198)} without sitelink, without reference without backlink (loop of not notable item is like no backlink) is an item not notable that we can delete without problem? --ValterVB (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if an item is not notable, one has different options. I suggest to take a more sensible approach and inform the project about the issue, rather than just deleting such items. Assuming we get this catalog (P972)-replacement property, we would be in a position where these kind of item sets can be managed much easier. I have decided to exempt items with the new property from my deletion routine once it is there (just as described at URL (P973) and described by source (P1343)), although it would not generate notability. At the same time, I'd set up a list to monitor its use, particularly how many non-notable items each of those projects manages. --MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So you propone to add all this type of items in this page and ping the user that created item? For me is OK no problem, need a decision for what to do for bots, or I must notify the project, but wich project? I repeat again if community think that this item are notable I haven't problem to keep this item, but I want a clear rule that we can keep this item. The simple way is add in Wikidata:Notability/Inclusion criteria Item with catalog (P972) = Black Lunch Table (Q28781198) (or another specific property) Why we can't do this? --ValterVB (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging the creator and main contributor of an item before deletion should always be done, at least if the editors are regular contributors. There is also a pending bot request for this. About the clear rules for notability: our notability criteria are on purpose weakly formulated, because notability is not only black and white. Or if it were so, administrators were no longer needed because a bot could take over the whole deletion business. It's the job of an administrator to decide on an item by item basis if notability is established. Personally, I tend to delete item if they are referenced with fake webpages but tend to keep items if they have many informative but unsourced statements. If there are doubts, it's always possible to get feedback by the community by starting a discussion on this page here. Preferably, this should be done on an item by item basis and not in the style of "BLT yes or no?". --Pasleim (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I can do it , but in past not all was happy about this (I done it one time), because when I delete items I dont delete 1 or 10 item but I delete hundred or thousand of item and I risk to full talk and recent changes. So your workflow is: search item to delete, ping user that have created, or the owner of the bot wait an answer and delete item after the answer? You say "It's the job of an administrator to decide on an item..." exactly but if after an admin delete items and other users not aren't agree I start a discussion, in this case this discussion, and in this specific case the question is very clear and not interpretable: "Are these items notable because they are in "Black Lunch Table" or "Black Lunch Table" isn't a sufficient condition to make notable these item and item like these (see the query result) must be deleted?" You say "Or if it were so, administrators were no longer needed because a bot could take over the whole deletion business" my opinion is "it's partially correct" the dimension of the project is too big for our resources, and it's necessary to have BOT that delete some kind of item because the rate from creation of not notable item vs deletion of this item is greater than one and the result is that Wikidata fills up of not notable item Probably not in this case but it isn't easy check if don't exist reference. --ValterVB (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
You asked a very clear question but the question is not answerable with yes or no. Like in most projects, there are also in BLT items with better and lower quality and items about more and less famous people. A general judgment is not possible. To move forward, I ask you to fill in a few deletion requests for specific items. --Pasleim (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Except for the query to the beginning of this discussione, I have exclude this type of item (MINUS { ?item wdt:P972 wd:Q28781198 }) from all my lists based on query to search not notable item. If are all agree I can exclude this criterium and when I find this type of item I can propose for deletion here. --ValterVB (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The idea of a bot making these deletions is not welcome.
  • I also think at root of this issue is a misunderstanding and unwillingness to support outreach to improve both Wikidata and Wikipedia. I am fundamentally dismayed at this, as while this is all framed as being an effort to protect Wikidata and Wikipedia, what it actually does is impact negatively on making the project more diverse and representative. So I would urge that the editors against this outreach work examine and listen to this, and possibly adjust their perspective.
  • I think it is also clear that although agreements have been made and a context to the issues and efforts has been freely and transparently given, the editors involved in this discussion are pretty much going to do what they want. It will hurt Wikidata for sure. And will make any meaningful integration of Wikidata and Wikipedia from the GLAM sector impossible. So that's on you all.
  • And to Pigs' comments above, having an active discussion on or off the platform does not constitute "canvassing." It is called outreach and discussion. Things you seem incapable of doing.
  • -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Your continued ad hominem abuse is beyond tiresome. You should case that at once. A definition of canvassing may be found at en:Wikipedia:Canvassing. Writing such a highly-partisan email, whose final paragraph begins "I am asking for support here", is unequivocally within that definition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No BOT delete item , we use SPARQL to search item that not fall autamtically in Wikidata:Notability , after the list is generted every item is manually checked (at least in my case). --ValterVB (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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)


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)


Agata Wietek (Q21065830): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet any notability criteria; the only external database link is to wiki-like site, without any references and added by some anonymous editor. Wostr (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PS There are other items like this, e.g. Jarosław Dudziński (Q47492671), Bronisława Wróblewska (Q47468354). On the all of these items were added by one author under MarWro nick being probably Mariusz Wróblewski (Q22813583). I think that is some kind of self-promotion (+family tree or something). Wostr (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the list of all IMHO not notable items from (login required) (only a few people from all created by this user on are notable, e.g. have VIAF/IMDB/other database ID or Wikimedia sitelink). All these items are connected to each other using father/mother/child etc. properties. Wostr (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Odd. I didn't know musicbrainz could have such pages. They are empty except for lists of parents and children. @Nikki: What do you think you about it?
    --- Jura 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep Are we fully positive that none of the above list are familial connections to otherwise notable entries? Even if they are not notable by themselves, they may fulfill the structural need clause and therefore should be kept. If there is any question, what is the harm in keeping them for the time being? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete I have seen no evidence of being notable with no references and not authority control other than what was added by probably the same person. The collection is very well done, fully utilizing Wikidata properties, and I assume that someonespend a lot of time on this. It does seem like family tree project. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete MusicBrainz is editable by everyone, so not trusted as a source (for notabilty). Out of project scope. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


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)
  •   Keep This item fulfills structural need. Like for all living people I think statements without reliable public sources should be removed. --Pasleim (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete I do not think there is a structural need to have this item. The only reference is unsourced wikipedia-like article in . So no references. --Jarekt (talk) 19:59, 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 serious sources given, biographies of living people should be respected. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I agree with the previous "keep" arguments, it's fulfills structural need. Tubezlob (🙋) 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


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)


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 [2], 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 of Wales (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 of Wales (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)


presiding judge (Q49460545): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty David (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Wait The item court president (Q16474031) also bears the alias 'presiding judge', added by @Andreasmperu:. @Hugo.arg: Is the article linked in that item actually different from the item nominated here? Also @Ohmyerica, Tom Morris:, as people who seem well-versed about court systems and could determine whether such an item as the one nominated here is necessary. Mahir256 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Mahir256: I'm not sure my comments are going to help, but here we go. A presiding judge is the judge presiding over a particular case. This is an attribute of a case. The president of a court is usually who the most senior judge on a court would be. In the United Kingdom Supreme Court, that would be Brenda Hale, Baroness Hale of Richmond (Q908568). The president of a court is an attribute of a court. The two concepts are not interchangeable. I don't know whether the item is necessary though. One might wish to specify that a certain judge in a panel is chairing the proceedings, but "presiding" is not really the word you'd use for that—you'd just say they chaired the panel.
There are some contexts you might use it in: if you were talking about an employment tribunal in England and Wales, these are held in front of a three-member panel, one of whom is legally qualified and so is technically the presiding judge, but also two representatives (one broadly for the employers, and one broadly for the employees—a trades union rep, for instance). But that point is somewhat moot because I don't think we have any Employment Tribunal cases (rather than EAT—Employment Appeal Tribunal—cases) in Wikidata, as ET cases do not attract much interest in the way EAT cases do. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
So, I'm not quite sure about this one. It seems like chief justice (Q3188089) but for courts besides supreme courts? It has "applies to jurisdiction" Germany so maybe someone more familiar w/ German law could weigh in. It might mean something different there and actually be a notable topic. I'm mainly familiar with US law. Its German label is "Vorsitzender Richter," which says means "chief justice," "chief judge," and "presiding judge," so I don't see how it differs from "chief justice" or "court president" even though the item suggests they are different. @ can you weigh in on this? ohmyerica (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Chelonoidis nigra darwini (Q27929478): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Chelonoidis darwini (Q2854422). It is the synonym treating this tortoise as the subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra (Q486672). [4] --SilverSpeech (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Prot D
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy These are 2 different ranks. Can you advise? Mbch331 (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Until recently all galapagos tortoises were considered as subspecies of a single species, C. nigra, however in a recent paper it was proposed they are species. Unlikely to hold up in the long term but for now the IUCN Checklist (TTWG 2017) is recognising them as species. As this is the major checklist followed by Wikispecies, Wikipedia etc we should follow suit here too. As I said this is unlikely to hold up in the long term since the various forms of Galaps are genetically almost identical, its one that may be dynamic for a few years. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


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, on subpages created by the translate extension and in various templates. --Pasleim (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't expect you to agree with me. It's just that we are doing it this way.
            --- Jura 14:33, 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)


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

Self-promo. (Note that I had requested the deletion of items about this guy and this guy in the past, so I will argue that deleting this is defensible.) Mahir256 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hard one, as we mostly see VIAF and ULAN as pretty reliable and notable. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For more info on the long-term cross-wiki spamming efforts by this person, see here. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep borderline but notable enough for Wikidata. VIGNERON (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: The first guy I linked to is also on VIAF. (The second guy had a few non-social media identifiers, but we try to delete items about that guy on sight.) Why should we reward individuals who misuse and abuse Wikimedia projects with items about them on Wikidata? Mahir256 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: a keep is not about rewarding nor a deletion about punishing; the question here is is it notable? and this artist seems to be notable per WD:N. The autobio-spamming deserve actions (eg. blocking Breggswatt222 (talkcontribslogs)) but throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems excessive to me. VIGNERON (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: We frequently delete items by spammers even if they are clearly identifiable conceptual entities and they happen to have identifiers to back them up. Why should one who happens to make it into VIAF be an exception here? (Bear in mind that VIAF frequently back-imports data from Wikidata, so it is conceivable at present that if spam goes unnoticed for enough time it can end up there.) Mahir256 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: were this other cases about notable people with links to other databases? Here we have VIAF *and* ULAN. The Getty Trust is usually quite reliable and rely on other sources (this notice in a Canadian database, notice created in 1987 so clearly not imported from Wikidata and this notice links to three other notices from three museums). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  Delete long-term spamming. Autobio deleted on a long list of wikis. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep, item was kept in September. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: @Randykitty: informed me of the September proposal and I have renominated it to determine more clearly whether the presence of identifiers on the subject's item overrides any history of the subject's abuse on Wikimedia projects, per my discussion with Nicolas above. (Would we want to keep items about each one of these people or these people if someone were to make them?) Mahir256 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If they would have valid external identifiers, yes. Just weird that you didn't inform us about the previous discussion. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep; I was just about to close this discussion as not deleted, but then I realized that I already closed the previous nomination that didn’t trigger that much discussion. Thus, another admin should decide this one. We may not like items about problematic Wikimedia contributors, but there is no policy that tells us to exclude them from having a Wikidata item. The one about Ananny has serious external identifiers, thus it should clearly be kept. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Randykitty:, to see what MisterSynergy wrote above. Mahir256 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


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 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)


no label (Q26070354): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Debenben (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's an item for a template. Unless it's deleted at idwiki, I don't see why we should delete this item.
--- Jura 14:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
My reason for deletion is that I dislike items like these cluttering the search results for vectors. The official reason is that it does not meet the notability criteria. Perhaps one could find a second sitelink, but that is up to whoever wants to keep it or create such items in the first place.--Debenben (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please provide the Wikidata guideline that says that "templates should have at least two sitelinks". Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:Notability 1. point 3: "If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks [...]"--Debenben (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't remember it like that. Seems like it was changed last year with not many participants. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't mean we delete the existing ones.
--- Jura 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Single-sitelink template items make it easier to manage sitelinks overall. In case a second sitelink is created somewhere, one has to look at one place only (which is Wikidata), rather than searching all projects for yet unconnected templates. It is also easier to merge potential duplicates once a template is connected to Wikidata. IMO we should try to connect all templates regardless of the number of sitelinks. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, but they mainly became a deletion task for admins. Many templates just have a function within in a given wiki. Besides, people tend to connect templates together merely because they have the same name.
--- Jura 14:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Templates as a deletion task for admins are not a big deal (these months I’m probably the most active admin in this field, so I am well-aware of numbers and workload). If you want to lower admin workload in this field, you need to discuss about single-sitelink category items (~2.7M, around 67% of all category items) which easily outnumber the single-sitelink template items (~668k, around 74% of all template items). —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
If the numbers on such deletions are low, it's because we limited the creation of new items with just one sitelink. If the number of existing single sitelink templates is stable, this would show that these don't add much to Wikidata.
--- Jura 14:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I have the impression that for connecting duplicate items about vectors (not necessarily templates), you are better off searching at wikipedia, because at wikidata the search results are cluttered with hundreds of unconnected template items.--Debenben (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


$wgAllowImageMoving (Q22092452): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I don't think this page should be on wikidata Laboramus (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Laboramus: you mean as any other MediaWiki manual page or just this one ?
--- Jura 05:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tgr, Legoktm: Thoughts? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't make claim about all other MediaWiki manual pages, maybe some (like Extension pages) are important enough, but IMHO certainly not every page for every variable. Laboramus (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I don't see much point in having a deletion discussion about this page on its own. More clarity on whether MediaWiki-related entities are welcome in Wikidata would certainly be great. See for specifics of what those entities are / could be; T155024 explains the use case. --Tgr (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


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)


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)

Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Prot D
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
  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)


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)


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)

Family of transEdit


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)


Amber Nicholas (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)


no label (Q9610572): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Some mixup --- Jura 08:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: Could you please explain more precisely what happened on this item? And, I think no label (Q29960562) can be used instead of no label (Q51845212). --Okkn (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure. I think someone merged a list item into a category item and then removed some of the category part.
The result is that there are elements of both. --
--- Jura 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: Isn't unmerging it sufficient to resolve the problem? --Okkn (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It might have been, but the category sitelink that was there initially had been moved to a new item. What remained are the descriptions.
--- Jura 16:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1:How about this procedure?
  1. Remove [de] sitelink from no label (Q51845212)
  2. Restore
  3. Remove [cs] sitelink from no label (Q31956400)
  4. Restore
  5. Merge no label (Q31956400) into no label (Q9610572)
--Okkn (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
In August last year that would have been the thing to do. Personally, I think it's just too much re-purposing at this stage.
--- Jura 16:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


Dana Chapman (Q51047036): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is a fake person, see Queryzo (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

obviously fake Imdb (can't have played in 1973, even as a baby ?)... --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Could be just a stray film credit from someone else with the same name?
--- Jura 13:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


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 [5] 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)


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. [6] --Pasleim (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


TV Parental Guidelines rating (Q52030870): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The creator clearly meant it as a property, albeit in the wrong namespace. Máté (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cwf97: properties need to be proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal to seek community concensus for their creation. Can you please hand in a proposal over there? —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


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 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 very well, but is it really suitable for such use cases? For example, the birth date and death date of [7] do not appear in the infobox at [8]. Regards, Kjetil_r (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


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)


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)


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. I suppose the original purpose was pages like or , but it now links to category redirects and regular categories : --- Jura 12:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


Abe Goldfarb (Q4666390): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unlinked. Non-notable voice actor - article was deleted at after discussion. hiàn 02:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


no label (Q52161563): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This was going to create more structure, but now I realise the items I was going to add this to are not actually referencing the events at all... ·addshore· talk to me! 13:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


BHARAT KUMAR SINGH (Q52161493): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Empty David (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Sahel Rafael Tamayo (Q52159644): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Empty David (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Épinal Museum (Q52161690): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicated by mistake --> Musée départemental d'Art ancien et contemporain (Q3330515) Wikidelo (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


no label (Q15695871): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty. Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 15:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)