Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/12/17

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q45859969

Théâtre Régional de Batna (Q45859969): theatre in Batna, Algeria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Existe déjà Great11 (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Redirect created by Pasleim, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q42808890

Q42808890: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Because of the item created here, when I search on Google for my name (this item), there are two types of items: - Federico Dubbini (artist) - Federico Dubbini (created with wiki data) So if it is not possible to link to the same item, I would like to delete this item. Thank you --FatheredCleric (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No surprise, the item doesn't give indications to Google that both entries are the same person. I think addition of YouTube or Spotify would fix that, but that wouldn't make it notable on Wikidata. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q45679457

Christoph Pfluger (Q45679457): Swiss journalist and publisher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

De-article was deleted. --Dandelo (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted; with a GND identifier and a backlink still notable for Wikidata. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q45889180

Q45889180: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty David (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q45856869

Q45856869: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty David (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q1471385

Q1471385: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

De-article was deleted. --Dandelo (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q44287862

Q44287862: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by User:Ans who misunderstood the way wikidata references work - they will now duplicate references --Pintoch (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Keep, @Pintoch, ChristianKl:

1. The duplicate reference gadget cannot duplicate across items.
2. Duplicating this reference will also break maintainability.
3. This could help when we later use LUA module to generate the list of episodes and their references as in w:List of One Piece episodes (season_1)#cite ref-j6-8 16-1, and the module can easily aware that this is duplicated references, if we inform the module to understand this semantic.
4. This Q44287862 item can be made more generic by NOT specifying the property name in it, and rather specify the property name as qualifier (to the generic reference item) to be more specific to that property.
5. There're many other statements that refer to the same citation like this. If this citation item is generalized, it can also be used to cite those statements.
6. It will be machine readable, if we inform the machine about the semantic of this generalized item.

--Ans (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ans: it appears you would like to use inferred from (P3452) instead of this approach. It would be very similar to your fourth bullet point above. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Before using Q44287862, I've already tried to figure the use of inferred from (P3452), but that is too ambiguous. It does not clear, from which specific entity in the item it inferred, so the machine cannot know of the inferred entity. @Pintoch: If the reason to not use Q44287862 is the lack of machine readability, then we should also not use inferred from (P3452) which far more lack machine readability.

inferred from (P3452) also just only infer, while Q44287862 tell that it refer to exactly the same citation, not just infer. --Ans (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your approach has the same problem of imprecise targeting. There can be many statements of the same property within one item, but you only target at properties, not at specific statements. It is also worth to note that we intentionally hardcopy references into each statement, and bots are to be used for maintenance on a larger scale. inferred from (P3452) references are somewhat useful and have reached community concensus. However, from Wikipedia’s perspective they are effectively as serious as imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references (which means: not at all considered to be serious). Your approach is P3452-like without community concensus; I also have difficulties to actually follow the link you are trying to make, to be honest. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I'm aware of such imprecise targeting problem, and this can be viewed as the limitation that my approach can be used only when property has no more than one value. I have the idea to solve this limitation, but it may not be implemented in this first phase. In the first phase, the statements in my use cases have only one property value, so it is not imprecise in those cases, so it can still be used precisely in single-value property. If we later found statements with multi-value property that need to use this approach, we can later implement the idea to solve that. In addition, though in the first phase it is still imprecise on multi-value property, however it is at least more precise than inferred from (P3452).

For maintainability issue, if we later need to change some details on the citation, it is a burden to change hundred of copied citations, and the bots cannot do this task.

To solve the issue of multi-value property, we can create a new citation property alike to the "name" attribute of <ref name=... />.

If no community consensus, the discussion here can also be a process to build community consensus? In the process of building community concensus, "no community consensus" cannot be reasonable reasoning why he disagree.

--Ans (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry no, but this does not work at all. Btw. bots are able to batch-correct references in case this is necessary. If you have a task, feel free to consult Wikidata:Bot requests. For community consensus you would need to do the following: (1) discuss your idea at Wikidata:Project chat; (2) have a property for this task, to be proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal; (3) adapt Help:Sources. However, I am pretty sure that such an approach will not gain substantial support from the community. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy:

1. How do you measure the "substantial support"? I've seen many properties has been created with only 1-2 users supporting them. Some has been created with no user supporting them, but also no any opposition.
2. Maintainability is still the main important issue. Bot cannot sync the changes among duplicated references, since bot have no information about which references are the duplicated of another one. If we need to store some information to inform bot about duplicated references, my approach may eventually still be a choice to store such information.
3. I would copy the quote by @ChristianKl: in Wikidata:Property proposal/inferred from, "Simply copying statement means that there's no provenance that allows a data user to know that a bot created the entry based on reasoning about other Wikidata items", which I could rephrase it for this task to be, "Simply copying statement/reference means that there's no provenance that allows a data user to know that a user created the entry based on the same reference in another Wikidata items". This is also important issue, in addition to maintainability.
4. At first phase, this task doesn't need a new property, since existing property can fit into it.

--Ans (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven't provided an example of how existing properties can be used without breaking the guarantee that if two items have the same stated in (P248) value they are both supported by the same source.

As far as maintainability goes, sources aren't supposed to be changing over time. If I exchange the source of itemA#Pxyz that can simply mean that itemA#Pxyz isn't really supported by the source or because I have a new source that also backs up the claim. This doesn't mean that itemB#Pxyz that at the time of the creation was supported by the same references as itemA#Pxyz is still supported by the same sources. A user who changes the source to add to itemA#Pxyz wouldn't know that they are breaking itemB#Pxyz.

When it comes to "substantial support" we have our standards for creating new properties and expect for a tiny amount of expections we generally agree that properties have gotten the necessary support when they get created. ChristianKl (✉) 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

inferred from (P3452) is a property with a well-defined meaning even when it's general. No data user is going to expect that it contains something that it doesn't. On the other hand, data users have certain reasonable expecations about what the value of stated in (P248) could be. ChristianKl (✉) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Opinion. We need to agree on how to categorize items that are created mainly for use as references, but Wikidata statement (Q44292881) and Wikidata reference (Q44292661) probably isn't the right way to do it. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• There aren't supposed to be items that are created to be used with stated in (P248) that don't correspond to sources of information like books or scientific papers. Putting other things in there is a violation of the intentended constraints even if you subclass information (Q11028) to try to avoid the constraint from triggering. Having those items means that you lose the gurantee that if two items have the same stated in (P248) value, they actually cite the same source and that's bad. To the extend you want to link some items to citation explanations where two items with the same value share a schema of citation but don't cite the same source that's not what stated in (P248) was created to represent. ChristianKl (✉) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q30332896

Éliane Daphy (Q30332896): French ethnologist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Harcèlement interwiki --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

the links are pages tagged only because they take part of an harassment of Q30332896 --Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

{{not deleted}} per valid external identifiers —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

MisterSynergy:  Delete This wasn't exactly needed when it was created, so we don't miss out on much by deleting it. I don't think anything good comes from its creator editing this item. (see discussion on AN).
--- Jura 20:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

All the items nominated here have valid identifiers to serious databases (VIAF, BNF, SUDOC and others). Most or all items are also linked from VIAF to Wikidata. Notability is not at all a problem here, and I cannot see any damage to the subject described; I also can’t see the “harassment” claimed by the nominator. Do we have any reasons to delete which I have missed? —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Keep There's notability through authoritative external IDs and there's a structural need even when it would be better if those statements would have sources. ChristianKl (✉) 12:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done meets notability criteria. --Pasleim (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q28792257

Q28792257: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Nonsense Schniggendiller (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q17617275

Template:Documentation/docname (Q17617275): Wikimedia template: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not-notable template subpage. Steak (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone able to tell what this template does? Since it has plenty of sitelinks, it looks important and I tend to  Keep it, but I haven’t made a final decision yet. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted Subpages of templates are in general allowed. /doc subpages are excluded but Q17617275 is a /docname subpage. --Pasleim (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Current sports team squads

Q28854979

Hertha BSC – current squad (Q28854979): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This seems to me the only "current squad" item, and I question the usefullness. It is outdated, and keeping an item like this updated requires much work. Steak (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment There are some other squad items, e.g FC Lausanne-Sport squad (Q20870955), and there are also some navboxes on dewiki which use data from squad items, e.g. de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Kader des FC Lausanne-Sport --Pasleim (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You can see how good this works, if at FC Bayern Munich squad (Q14736182) Guardiola is still manager. This item was last updated 2015! Steak (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I updated FC Bayern Munich squad (Q14736182). Concerning Hertha BSC – current squad (Q28854979), Ghuron made the last update a few months ago. --Leyo 11:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leyo: I merely change qualifier stated in (P248) to imported from Wikimedia project (P143) for German Wikipedia (Q48183). I guess the only meaningful changes was made by Harry Canyon --Ghuron (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If nobody is volunteering for updating Q28854979, it may get deleted. --Leyo 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Q14736182

FC Bayern Munich squad (Q14736182): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

More than two years outdated, not of any use without constant updates. Steak (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Item creators @Harry Canyon, Pasleim, Leyo: can these items be made season items which do not need updates regularly? Each season would need an item for each team of course, and you either have to switch over manually in the Wikipedia templates, or find a clever algorithm to do that for you. However, items with permanent changes should not appear here… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated now.

The idea is to always have the current squad. Like that it may used in e.g. squad templates (see de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Kader von Montreal Impact and roster of Montreal Impact (Q21011427)). This use has a big potential in sharing the workload among different language versions. --Leyo 22:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment even if these aim to be up-to-date (and are up-to-date), I think it would be good to include some measure that indicates when this was actually checked to be correct.
  --- Jura 15:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Have you got a suggestion? --Leyo 16:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  I would still suggest to move to another concept: “2017/18 season squad of FC Bayern Munich” or so. This needs to be set up once in the beginning of a season and requires few changes only (e.g. new coach, winter transfers, …). Next season there will be new items for Bayern Munich and all other squads. You would of course have to modify the Wikipedia template once a year as well and update the item it accesses, but this should not be a big deal. We would also be able to list past squads, not only present ones. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  If the squads remained the same during the whole season, this would clearly be an option. However, as this is not the case and in-season-changes are not even limited to winter transfers, I do strongly disagree with that suggestion. I am speaking for club squads only. Squads of national teams during e.g. FIFA World Cups is a different case. --Leyo 23:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep Items being outdated is no reason to delete them. They can still provide valuable historic information. ChristianKl (✉) 00:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted Items are again up to date. --Pasleim (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q37701258

Q37701258: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused, duplicate of Q167170 --Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: --ValterVB (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• It wasn't really unused, it's just that Mnnlaxer removed its uses. It's not an event, so it's not a duplicate of Q167170.
  --- Jura 08:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: I have rollbacked you edit. If you don't like the use of the item you can talk with who added the item. --ValterVB (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Delete. "Multi-sport" isn't an identifiable entity. The uses of this item purport that, for example, Mediterranean Games (Q272090)sport (P641)Q37701258, which would imply "multi-sport" is a kind of "sport". A multi-sport event (Q167170) is an event that plays many different sports, not an event that plays "multi-sport". None of the English Wikipedia articles in the linked items refer to "multi-sport" as a noun concept and it would be unacceptable original research for Wikidata to invent such a concept. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• It looks like it's misspelled. Maybe it should be "multisport", not "multi-sport".
  --- Jura 09:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would support  merging because no confliction can be found for any properties for me. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

multisport race (Q31645) is "multisport" ("multi-sport"?)? --Fractaler (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fractaler: IMO, Yes as we can also say a no-go area as no-go zone. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

We also have multisport sport (Q43767805) --Fractaler (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment We are currently redoing this stuff, so at present I don't think the item is needed. It may be needed in the future, but you could delete it in the meantime.
  --- Jura 15:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted --Pasleim (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q34531103

Q34531103: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Transferred to Q213512 Ymnes (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Artist of Black Lunch Table

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
WHERE{
  ?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).

  OPTIONAL{
    ?backlink ?p1 ?item .
  }
  FILTER(!bound(?backlink))  
  
  OPTIONAL{
    ?item ?p2 [prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref] .
    ?ref ?pr [] .
    FILTER (?pr != pr:P143) #no source
  }  
  FILTER(!bound(?ref))
  
  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)

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)

Artist of Black Lunch Table

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
WHERE{
  ?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).

  OPTIONAL{
    ?backlink ?p1 ?item .
  }
  FILTER(!bound(?backlink))  
  
  OPTIONAL{
    ?item ?p2 [prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref] .
    ?ref ?pr [] .
    FILTER (?pr != pr:P143) #no source
  }  
  FILTER(!bound(?ref))
  
  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)

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)

Q30143969

Padma Vibhushan (Q30143969): second highest civilian award of the Republic of India: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is a duplicate of Padma Vibhushan (Q672392). The award is award is awarded for exemplary service to India, there are no specific awards ever given separately for various fields. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: Can you comment? --Pasleim (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

•  Delete. This item purports to be a subset of Padma Vibhushan (Q672392), but with zero sitelinks and zero sources, it's quite clear that this is not notable. Since this item tries to be a subset rather than a duplicate of Padma Vibhushan (Q672392), deletion is better than merge. We can re-create this item if there are reliable sources that distinguish this from the superset topic. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Padma_Vibhushan_award_recipients

@GerardM: I tend to agree with the nominator here. The award subcategory doesn't seem to be a well-defined entity in its own right and doesn't have independent notability. It does not serve any structural purpose that Padma Vibhushan (Q672392) (perhaps with qualifier) can't already handle. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not a subcategory. When memory serves me well, they are part of the "Padma Vibhushan award". So there is no problem in the first place. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. My understanding is that these people are awarded the Padma Vibhushan for their work in civil service. There is no separate award called "Padma Vibhushan in civil service", unlike the various Nobel prizes. Deryck Chan (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikipedia list article has a column for category of their work, but as Deryck said, the award title is no altered, it remains just "Padma Vibhushan", but may be in the award citation, there is a mention on their field of service. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: I don't think it's demonstrated that this is a separate award and I think Krishna Chaitanya Velaga is right, so I plan to delete this item. Do you want to move the statements beforehand to the basic item for "Padma Vibhushan"? ChristianKl (✉) 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:, you do not understand the complexity, that follows from *your* decision. At this time I do not have the bandwidth to work on this award. So when you move to delete this item you break things. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a valid request to delete the item as it refers to something that doesn't exist and this leaves this open discussion on the top of the Request for deletion page. I'm willing to give you some time to clean up, but not an undefined amount of time. Do you want to propose a timeframe yourself for cleaning up this issue? ChristianKl (✉) 20:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: ChristianKl (✉) 20:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Redirect created by Pasleim, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q16707840

Q16707840: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item was created as an example for a property proposal before we figured out a data model for UK MPs; we have no other items of "MP for constituency" and we now use qualifiers. Having this around is just going to cause confusion about the preferred data model and it's not currently used for anything. I've replaced it as an example in officeholder (P1308) and the relevant items all use appropriately qualified P39 properties. @Jdforrester: who created this originally but I think indicated he'd be happy with the deletion Andrew Gray (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: please comment due to [1]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the deletion itself. We just need to find a better replacement sample than the one I reverted.
--- Jura 08:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong with the mayor example, but I don't tend to use P1308 much; if you'd prefer something else, please go ahead and put it in. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Q25937753

Mahometus (Q25937753): male given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merge failed so attempted by hand, which worked A. Mahoney (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Amahoney: What's the other item with which you wanted to merge this item? ChristianKl (✉) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User moved the sitelink that contains Mahometus from Mahometus (Q25937753) to Muhammad (Q19693229). I don't think that is what Wikidata:WikiProject Names wants... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk)

Latin page la:Mahometus (name) should be linked to en:Muhammad (name), but it wasn't; it had its own separate Wikidata item. This problem comes up a lot with Latin articles, for various reasons. Normally I fix it by merging the Latin-only Wikidata item into the correct one. Today, that didn't work, so I just removed the Latin link from the spurious item and put it into the correct one. Note that this is not the same as the page la:Mahometus about the historical figure, correctly belonging to Q9458; rather, it's the page about the give name. There is now nothing left in Q25937753. A. Mahoney (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ash Crow
Dereckson
Harmonia Amanda
Hsarrazin
Jura
Чаховіч Уладзіслаў
Joxemai
Place Clichy
Branthecan
Azertus
Jon Harald Søby
PKM
Pmt
Sight Contamination
MaksOttoVonStirlitz
BeatrixBelibaste
Moebeus
Dcflyer
Looniverse
Aya Reyad
Infovarius
Tris T7
Klaas 'Z4us' van B. V
Deborahjay
Bruno Biondi
ZI Jony
Laddo
Da Dapper Don
Data Gamer
Luca favorido
The Sir of Data Analytics
Skim
E4024
JhowieNitnek
Envlh
Susanna Giaccai
Epìdosis
Aluxosm
Dnshitobu
Ruky Wunpini
Balû
★Trekker

Notified participants of WikiProject Names Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done "each string should have a distinct item" [2] --Pasleim (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)