Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2019/01/01

< Wikidata:Requests for deletions‎ | Archive‎ | 2019‎ | 01
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q56191649

John Thornton (Q56191649): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No connection with any person Sol1 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The name John Thorton shows 43 published works on tandfonline. Lazypub (talk)
  Not deleted; item in use —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q59820404

Q59820404: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No evidence of notability. No internal links, no sitelinks, no authority control. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q59820404

Q59820404: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No evidence of notability. No internal links, no sitelinks. The creator has almost no other edits on Wikidata. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q59820404

Q59820404: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No evidence of notability. No internal links, no sitelinks, no authority control. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Lexeme:L40646

invalid ID (L40646): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Mistake Rhadamante (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Lexeme:L40641

invalid ID (L40641): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a lexeme --KaMan (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Lexeme:L40646

invalid ID (L40646): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a lexeme --KaMan (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request:Wrong messages

223.24.171.134 created wrong messages.Please delete them collectively.Thanks --David (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q60181624

Q60181624: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty --Moumou82 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim Ehling

  1. Q59239372 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q59240119 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

No evidence of notability. No internal links, no sitelinks, no authority control. Created by a user named Tim Ehling, having no other main space edits on Wikidata. Tacsipacsi (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q3475994

Q3475994: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty --Moumou82 (talk) 13:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q56590997

Q56590997: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Out of scope, Facebook and YT sources. Just another Youtube producer Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, this guy is a self-promoting machine. I support deleting all of the associated pages (list to follow). But I am hesitant to remove the main artist item. He has done enough self-promoting that he may have made himself notable - he has a google knowledge graph. ISNI and VIAF can't be far behind. Thousands of hits on the guy, but they are all self-published social media type accounts. Lazypub (talk)
I have found the following - Q56590997, Q56593449, Q56596793, Q56597415, Q56598644, Q59221629, Q60237198, Q60238253 Lazypub (talk)
I deleted some of the listed items as they are clear cases. Someone else might want to have a look at the remaining two items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of an ASCAP membership (which proves nothing, and certainly does not demonstrate notability), I find no actual business named Shaylo Records. I only find some guy posting on numerous sites "hey, I am shay and I am an artist named shay and I am signed to shay records which I also own because I am shay." Which, if you think about it, is exactly what he did here by creating all of those items (plus other items that were deleted separately).
And the artist is no different. No notability. Nothing other than self-published sites - a lot of self-published sites. Lazypub (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q26887329

Template:Prime Ministers of Australia (Q26887329): Wikimedia template: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merged in (Q13360381) Krish Dulal (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Redirect created by User:MisterSynergy, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q6117978

Sam & The Soul Machine (Q6117978): Musical group: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Edslov (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry was deleted. But I am going to fill in some data on this one. I think they may have been (secondhand) notable, as they had multiple notable members. Lazypub (talk)
  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  Keep seems notable enough for Wikidata. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done --Pasleim (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q1162711

Daniel Sigloch (Q1162711): German politician (1873-1961): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spammer, Commons-cat deleted. Hedwig in Washington (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Hedwig in Washington, are you sure about the Q-ID? The nominated item looks fine to my opinion, and I cannot see a deleted Commons-cat … —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Not anymore. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess you meant Stephan Sigloch (Q60198348). I tend not to delete it due to the GND identifier. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yippee! A GND for every kiosk. Geez...   both withdrawn

  Not done --Pasleim (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Phonemes in Lexemes

invalid ID (L21066): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Concerned lexemes: invalid ID (L21066), invalid ID (L21067), invalid ID (L21068), invalid ID (L21070), invalid ID (L21071), invalid ID (L21072), invalid ID (L21073), invalid ID (L21074), invalid ID (L21075), invalid ID (L21077), invalid ID (L21078), invalid ID (L21079), invalid ID (L21080), invalid ID (L21081), invalid ID (L21082)

There has been several discussions (Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data/Archive/2018/09#Is_phoneme_a_lexeme?, Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data/Archive/2018/10#L:L21070_should_not_exist) and a vote with a 100% in favor of deletion (Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Archive/2018/11#Vote: Do we allow phoneme in the Lexeme namespace?)

@Pamputt, KaMan, ArthurPSmith, Rua, Shlomo, Njardarlogar:

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pasleim (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q55236988

Q55236988: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

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

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

  Not done --Pasleim (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Items by User:Buddhist.Matikas

This set of items was deleted by Sjoerd on October 25th for not being notable. A month later, we may wish to re-evaluate as a community whether they actually warranted their deletion in the first place following a complaint by their creator. Here's hoping that either this section or all four sections above ending with 'about Wikimedians' are closed by non-involved admins quickly. Mahir256 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

should probably ping @Buddhist.Matikas, Pigsonthewing: Mahir256 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See above ValterVB (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete, totally incomprehensible items. What are? What a concept they express? which structural function do they perform? Only a label and a description don't help. --ValterVB (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done items do not meet notability. @Buddhist.Matikas: You have the data of all items on your talk page. If you want to contribute to Wikidata I suggest that you only create one item at the time. Add multiple statements, references and description and only then create the next item. --Pasleim (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q60150565

Q60150565: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Needs to go through property proposal and become a P item Runner1928 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Jack Rabbit Slim's: You need to request a new property at Wikidata:Property proposal. --Pasleim (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q57338084

Q57338084: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable anymore, I found a better way to include the wanted value with the use of incertae sedis (P678) example in Perlophiura (Q28122683) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not needed anymore is different than not notable anymore. We don't follow recentism or chronocentrism. If something is notable once, it will always be notable. Lazypub (talk)
  Delete Likely it have never been notable enough. And I was wrong to create it. The good way seems to be the way I quoted above. End of discussion, for me; Do what you want, Regards Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  Delete agree. of no real use and more likely just to create confusion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  Delete. No use (only a Commons category), and the suggestion of Christian is better. Mr. Fulano! Talk 17:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  Delete. Since the term "incertae sedis" always indicates nothing else than uncertainty of taxonomic position, the phrase can never really be part of an actual taxon name. It's more of an addition to a taxon name and only used to point out that the taxon's current position within the nomenclature is yet to be determined. Hence it is incorrect to say that (in this case) Ophiurida incertae sedis is a "suborder of echinoderms" as the description now states. No proper taxon name of a suborder or any other taxon rank will ever include the phrase "incertae sedis": in the same way, "sedis" will never be the subspecies of the species "Homo incertae..." As Scott says using the term in the wrong way only invites confusion, so better to delete this Wikidata identifier – especially since it is more or less unused. Best regards and Season’s Greetings to you all, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC).

  WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.: more input, please… —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It would have been notable only if we respect this concept and only in the extend that we consider it as a taxon rank (as it is considered by WORMS and eol in the both links above), and I created/formated it at begining [3] for this exact goal: to retrieve this said "taxon rank", however it seems that a Wikidata taxon specialist think that it was not appropriate. No matter for me, as I found another way to retrieve the information (see my first comment), but IMO this item is absolutly unuseful in the current form. And "instance of" incertae sedis is fully not appropriate, and I removed it. So yes, if it is notable then restore it as I did it otherwise that's mean that we don't want to retrieve "that concept" and that therefore it is not notable, thus my request for deletion. Or so take this opportunity to bother the world, and to keep it in a totally inappropriate formatting, the loser will be the "ontology", nobody else. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
"Ophiurida incertae sedis" is elevated to the rank of taxon by WORMS, and that's the exact reason I created the item. So me, the first, I can understand its alleged notability, in particular because WORMS is a source recognized by many specialists. But if we do not consider this as a rank of taxon, as WORMS does, it makes no sense to keep it as noticeable, because if it is noticeable it is especially because it has been raised to the rank of taxon by WORMS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I quote:
"WoRMS taxon details...Ophiurida incertae sedis (Suborder)"
Restore or delete. If I started this request it is because, in my opinion, there is no sense in making another than these two choices, and because at the time of this request, on the two editors of this item, me included, only one, me, seemed to think that is was notable.... I wonder why this become complicated.... Both choices for me are fine, no problems, but another solution would be rather inappropriate IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the sentence "The concept "not notable anymore" is bogus" " is out of topic. Because every one who really try to understand my reasoning will understand that, as creator, I though it was notable, and then the events [4] and [5] made me think that I was wrong and that the item is in fact not notable. By "Not notable anymore" understand : "I created the item because I though that it was notable, but now I think that I was wrong", anyone who will try to be interested will understand, but at least one must try to be interested before voting. Just keep the item (or vote a keep) because one play with my words is silly. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
a quick summary:
if notable : please restore it as it was there, because that retrieved the exact infos coming from the used source
otherwise : please delete it, because it is a nonsense to keep it without the same attributes and infos as in the source that makes this item notable.... logic, isn't it?
note that on Wikidata we have incertae sedis (P678), note also that I was not aware of this property when I created the item, and note finally that this page exist in WORMS since 2013 and that nobody, before me, judged it worth to be created as item here. This property is a thing that WORMS very likely don't have in their database (as many other taxon databases available in the web). This is likely why they created this "taxon rank" page, for convenience, and this is why I made this request for deletion : we manage to have the info via the property. Example in Perlophiura (Q28122683) in the section "parent taxon" the property retrieve the info "Ophiurida incertae sedis (Suborder)" given by the source, (otherwise, and if the property don't do the job, see the first point above and restore the item as it was, and then use it as a taxon rank, but in this case such a property become useless)
just my opinion, of course. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  Delete Not notable and of no use here.--Succu (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW you should request the deletion of c:Category:Ophiurida incertae sedis created by you Christian Ferrer. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes it crossed my mind, I need to see the best way incertae sedis is managed on Commons, and it is also my goal to (make) integrated the propery incertae sedis (P678) inside the Wikimedia Commons infobox that retrieve the infos coming from Wikidata. Not sure that it will be done in the next few day, but yes it stays in a corner of my mind. And yes, I'm a mostly a Wikimedia Commons user, and when I create something here it's usually for the info can be finally retrieved into Commons, by a way or another, so if I created the item here it was indeed for the utility of integrating this rank into our infobox, but I was not aware of the property. BTW the category on Commons is not a criterion of notability about the item, therefore this is a bit out of topic. And BTW you're free to come and help to the category maintenance into Wikimedia Commons, but if you do not have too much interest into that, then you do not need to talk about that, if not to mark a point. And BTW, I'm administrator in Commons, and the category will be deleted by me as soon as it will not be used anymore, thing that will come soon or later. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q60321111

Q60321111: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam ‐‐1997kB (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q59195286

pelvic floor (Q59195286): anatomical structure: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Duplicate of Q813683 and no longer linked --Berny68 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Berny68: Please merge the two pages on ukwiki and then the two items can be merged. Mahir256 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Q59195286 should be kept and this delete request has become obsolete therefore now. All the interlinks meet there now. I cannot decide if and how the two pages on ukwiki pages can be merged, as don't speak any Ukranian.--Berny68 (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll let fellow admins (and more medically well-versed than I) @علاء, ChristianKl, Okkn: decide on a course of action based on your sitelink movements. Mahir256 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Berny68: I think all sitelinks in pelvic floor (Q59195286), except for [ukwiki], should be placed on pelvic floor (Q813683) again. --Okkn (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose
    • Per "9th edition of Snell's clinical Anatomy by region" that:
      • Inferior Pelvic Wall or Pelvic Floor. The floor of the pelvis supports the pelvic viscera and is formed by the pelvic diaphragm. The pelvic floor stretches across the pelvis and divides it into the main pelvic cavity above, which contains the pelvic viscera, and the perineum below.
      • Pelvic Diaphragm is formed by the important levatores ani muscles and the small coccygeus muscles and their covering fasciae. It is incomplete anteriorly to allow passage of the urethra in males and the urethra and the vagina in females.
    • Per "3rd edition of Grays Anatomy For Students" that:
      • The pelvic floor, which separate the pelvic cavity from the perineum, is formed by muscles and fascia.
      • Two levator ani muscles attach peripherally to the pelvic walls and join each other at the midline by a connective tissue raphe. Together they are the largest components of the bowl- or funnel-shaped structure known as the pelvic diaphragm, which is completed posteriorly by the coccyges muscles.
I'll put a note in Wikiproject Anatomy talk page in enwiki about this two items. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion Wikiproject Anatomy in enwiki --Alaa :)..! 16:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  Comment The Pelvic Floor and the Pelvic Diaphragm can't be synonyms, because the former includes the pelvic diaphragm (lat. diaphragma pelvis) and urogenital diaphragm (lat. diaphragma urogenitale). --В.Галушко (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • FMA seems to see the terms as synonyms and Uberon just has muscle of pelvic diaphragm. I created an issue on the Uberon Github page for the concept.
Given that Uberon and FMA see Pelvic diaphragm as the main name, I would put the sitelinks on a Wikidata item called Pelvic diaphragm(pelvic floor (Q813683)). When having two concepts likes this where the meaning isn't clear we should specify meaning with has part(s) (P527) and does not have part (P3113), so that people who look at the item know what it means precisely.
In any cases we don't delete items on Wikidata when there are dublicated items but merge items.
Maybe we should move this discussion to the talk page of pelvic floor (Q813683). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems the issue I filled on the Uberon tracker will get resolved by Uberon adding distinct concepts for pelvic floor and pelvic diaghragm. After they do we can follow their lead. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 07:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  Not done not duplicates --Pasleim (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Q951006

Q951006: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This seems to have been created as the same topic as presbytery (Q14616641) but possibly mixed with sanctuary (Q29553). It now consists of a site link to the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, an English label that belongs to Q14616641, and a Commons category that duplicates choir (Q207707). The site link should probably be moved to Q29553 based on Google Translate but I'm not certain enough to move it myself, and if it is moved I don't know if this item should be merged or deleted. --Peter James (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 2 others. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  Deleted by Pasleim (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2019/01/01&oldid=2027527411"