Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2019/10/14

< Wikidata:Requests for deletions‎ | Archive‎ | 2019‎ | 10
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q16200931

Tony Ricca (Q16200931): American professional wrestler: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a notable person. Article on Wikipedia deleted via AfD as not notable. Image on WikiCommons nominated for deletion. Uploader ignoring Wikipedia ruling insisting subject is notable without demonstrating it. Has also been noted as outside the scope of WikiCommons as not educational. Conflict of interest also speculated re the uploader and therefore smacks of promotional activity. Should be deleted as there is therefor no valid link as I expect the image on WikiCommons to be deleted. --2001:8003:5999:6D00:99B4:95B:D278:ABCE 07:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
As noted - the link IDed by DeltaBot has been nominated for deletion. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:99B4:95B:D278:ABCE 08:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • First, I don't know how I feel about the child's item being included, but I also admit to not looking into it as much as I did the father's. But the previous deletion request on WD seems to lean towards "legitimate use of a child".
So, now as to the parent's item. KEEP. He may not meet eligibility for Wikipedia (but the deletion discussion was mainly focused on the self-promotion, not the notability), but I think he passes on Wikidata. Quakewoody (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • More importantly, why did User:Scoid delete my comment!!! Quakewoody (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Deletion was explained on another item that was accidentally deleted. Apology was accepted. I consider that issue resolved. But take note, this is a separate edit deletion from the edit deletions mentioned further down in this discussion. Which is kind of odd, if you think about it. My comments in support of Tony Ricca keep getting deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
Could you please explain how (with the anticipated deletion of the image on WikiCommons) there is a valid link that is essential to the retaining of an entry on here? 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D5CE:C140:8863:3D17 03:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Note - I am the same person as the Nominating IP. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D5CE:C140:8863:3D17 03:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, as explained on wikicommons about wikicommons - you don't know the rules of Wikidata. They are not the same as Wikipedia. I didn't even care that something was going on over at commons until you mentioned it in your latest comment. Quakewoody (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
You never made any such observation. All you did was accuse me of sock puppetry, which I repudiate 100 percent (one of them isn't even my provider for crying out loud and I don't have a mobile!). I do know the rules here, and the chief one is the existence of a valid link. I expect the images on WikiCommons to be deleted so there isn't a valid link - which is the perfect reason for it to be deleted from here. So how about explaining where the other valid link is as previously requested? Oh and by the way - WikiCommons also prohibits promotion (that was also under 2.2 over there when I looked after the other IP brought it to my attention with their vote over there). 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D4D:B5BA:2D0A:3835 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I went over to commons after the fact. Not before. And while there, I found 3 ip addresses from the same location, all voting on the same images. In fact, not only did they vote the same way, they were the only votes on many of them. If that doesn't raise a red flag, I don't know what does. And that doesn't even get into the fact that none of the ip addresses have any previous editing history on commons. They just all appear from the same location at the same time on the same discussions with the same opinions.
And, also, because you don't know the rules (which would explain why you deleted six of my deletion discussion comments on commons), even without a commons picture, the wikidata item will still remain. And that is completely permissible. My vote here was based solely on here, you brought my attention to commons. I voted to keep it here based on here's rules.
But, as explained to you on commons, keep commons on commons. Other than the mention of "it is currently nominated for deletion", nothing that happens over there has any impact over here. Quakewoody (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Yet again, no explanation as to where the valid link is. No valid link equals deletion from Wikidata. It's you who doesn't know the rules. And I rechecked the locations of my IP and the others and boy do you have a really general interpretation of "same location". And no the views were not the same - the 118 said the uploader was the subject, and I said before you even got involved that I disagreed with that! I didn't even check the scope before the other IP got involved! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D4D:B5BA:2D0A:3835 22:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
LOL. I bet DeltaBot wasn't referring to anything off of Wikidata.Quakewoody (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
And I explained that already. Therefore it's not a valid link. Try again. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:F561:95E:11A6:9432 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bot knows where the link is. I know where the link is. We don't need to explain it to you (again). You don't know Wikidata. And, quite frankluy, I am not going to tell you where the link is because I feel as if you are the type of guy that will go after that link solely to go after this link. I mean, that is already what you are doing here - without any consideration of wikidata rules you are trying to delete an item because it may be deleted from commons because it was deleted from en.wikipedia.
I didn't even base my vote on a link, I did it on notability. You aren't going to change my mind. I am done discussing it. Quakewoody (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It WILL be deleted from the Commons, not may. Not unless some sort of miracle occurs. You have your view. I have mine. My view is that you are wrong. He's not notable. Period. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:84B3:33E1:629:5A26 13:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And it has been deleted like I said. No valid link now confirmed! That took longer than it should have. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:84B3:33E1:629:5A26 03:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
1. it is still linked without the image. i think me and the bot told you this. but you won't listen.
2. he meets wikidata qualifications. wikidata has its own rules. you've been told. but you won't listen.
3. and most importantly, wikicommons admin changed their mind. the file has been kept.
3a. also worth noting, if you bothered to read the reason for deletion, you would have seen that it had nothing to do with anything you said, which is why it was allowed to be brought back. Quakewoody (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm only going to say this once more. There is no valid link. Do not count WikiCommons, as it should have been deleted. As stated below, an error has been made and is being reviewed. No valid link equals it should be deleted from here. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:99A7:C58:E525:836A 03:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You do understand that you aren't making yourself look very good right now, don't you? You're coming across like a spoiled child. It didn't go the way you wanted, so you are saying that everyone else is wrong. Some how everyone except for you (and the 2 other IP addresses from the same town, voting on the same issues) made a mistake. Even the automatic bots are mistaken. Not you, you can't be wrong. Everyone else is.
Please allow me to repeat myself (and I will copy/paste it every time from here on out) - Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
No. I'm having the keep decision reviewed and it will be deleted as an error has been made. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:99A7:C58:E525:836A 03:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't a question for you. It is a request to people that matter. Quakewoody (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Can we close this discussion now? The deletion request was, for the most part, based on a deletion discussion on Wikicommons. That discussion is closed, the image was kept. Let's move on. Quakewoody (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk)
THE LINK IS NOT VALID. What part of that don't you get? No valid link means it doesn't stay here!!! My motives are as simple as that. To claim anything beyond that is assuming bad faith. I am in a position to assume bad faith by you due to the sheer ignorance of the FACT that I put in bold. DELETE THIS PAGE!!! TOTALLY NOT NOTABLE!!! AT ALL!!! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D403:7AFC:BACB:1782 23:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk)
THE LINK IS NOT VALID. What part of that don't you get? No valid link means it doesn't stay here!!! My motives are as simple as that. To claim anything beyond that is assuming bad faith. I am in a position to assume bad faith by you due to the sheer ignorance of the FACT that I put in bold. DELETE THIS PAGE!!! TOTALLY NOT NOTABLE!!! AT ALL!!! (I can repeat too you know!) 2001:8003:5999:6D00:F15E:FC7D:42F4:373C 06:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The difference is, you look like a fool doing it.
Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk)
No, you look like the fool because I'm within the rules and you aren't. Links need to be valid. This one isn't. A valid link is compulsory for an entry here. The link is invalid because it should not be there at the Commons for the reasons given. I repeat - you are the fool for not understanding what you are posting! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4556:21A9:15E6:6959 01:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk)
THE LINK IS NOT VALID. What part of that don't you get? No valid link means it doesn't stay here!!! My motives are as simple as that. To claim anything beyond that is assuming bad faith. I am in a position to assume bad faith by you due to the sheer ignorance of the FACT that I put in bold. DELETE THIS PAGE!!! TOTALLY NOT NOTABLE!!! AT ALL!!! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4556:21A9:15E6:6959 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not even taking WikiCommons into consideration, the item is linked. Even if it didn't have links, the item meets Wikidata notability (which is different than Wikipedia notability). There are no self-promotion/COI violations to be concerned with (which are different than Wikipedia's self-promotion/COI rules). I had no reason to doubt good faith intentions from the IP filer when this was request was opened, but I now question the motives of everything after the initial request. Quakewoody (talk)
THE LINK IS NOT VALID. What part of that don't you get? No valid link means it doesn't stay here!!! My motives are as simple as that. To claim anything beyond that is assuming bad faith. I am in a position to assume bad faith by you due to the sheer ignorance of the FACT that I put in bold. DELETE THIS PAGE!!! TOTALLY NOT NOTABLE!!! AT ALL!!! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 23:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep, now you've done it. Because of your personal bias against this person, your lack of knowledge of the rules, and your inability to accept the discussion results.... multiple files are now protected from editing. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. Quakewoody (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Fuck off. I'm not quitting. You will because you don't know the rules here or on the Commons! I have made a formal complaint. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 03:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a few days now and I think the line has been crossed. Both Quakewoody and the 2001 IP are behaving abomoninably. So I have hat boxed (I think that's the right term) the rubbish. The Commons stuff is under control and irrelevant now and as a valid link exists this article should be closed as keep. TLPG (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q7169777

Q7169777: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No article on any wiki (deletd from en:), no external source (imdb link was wrong)) ) Rhadamante (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The lack of interwikis is obviously not a reason to delete an item. I've added the correct IMDb profile, plus the item may be linked from Q1305123 and Q7353497. I'm skeptical about his actial notability, but this item about him may be helpful in the sense of structural need. How do you think? --Wolverène (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I double what was said above. Notability on his own is questionable, at least it isn't a case of self promotion or fake credits. And his roles on certain shows could be linked if an experienced editor cared enough to link them. Also, the wrong IMDb code (now fixed), was one digit off. It wasn't like someone was pointing to a random page, it was just mis-entered (the wrong page also caused an issue with the date of birth). Quakewoody (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Quakewoody, I am sorry for mistakenly deleting comments from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q7169777 while editing an issue of my own. I did not refer of any of your contributions. --Scoid (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
fair enough. apology accepted. Quakewoody (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q65013304

Q65013304: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A mix between film director and film, no identifier. -- MovieFex (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peuc: There are other items with no identifier. More recent items, such as Les hommes oubliés (Q67404125), have Cinémathèque québécoise work ID (P4276) but I couldn't find the name mentioned in Q65013304 on that site. Are there references that could be added to items such as Christian Niccoli (Q65013308) and Q65013310? Peter James (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@MovieFex: @Peter James: Thank you for reporting the error in Q65013304, it's now fixed. I've found some information about Q65013310 on Cinémathèque québécoise and AG-Kurzfilm websites. Unfortunately, no property exists to add these databases as external identifiers, so I've added official webpages for both the movie and its director.
  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q69123662

Q69123662: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Almost empty, not enough to identify it - description says dialect of Kurdish (Q36368) but label is "Q36368". Possibly intended to be the same as Sorani (Q36811) but no useful content. Peter James (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Central Kurdish isn't spoken in Turkey contrary to what the "Kurdish" description here says. I don't think that merging into Q36368 is good way, so I support the deletion. --Wolverène (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q70044635

Q70044635: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy David (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Notability - While I think he passes, my problem with making a decision is that everything is a foreign language website. So I can't really read the sites to make a decision.
He appeared on a Serbian tv talent show. But, again, I don't speak the language and I am not familiar with the Serbian tv programming. So, I wouldn't know the difference between American Idol, The Gong Show, or QuizMasters (a teen quiz competition that only appears on a small local network network from a small town of a rural state and the contestants are all from local schools).
For point of reference, he does have a listing on famousbirthdays.com, which proves nothing. But considering I don't have one even though I am on all of the major sites - how did he get one if he is not more notable than I am? Quakewoody (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q70079799

Q70079799: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears to be same as deleted Q69532780  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

good point. That's what I get for not doing my work. Quakewoody (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q69036236

  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q69036236

Q69036236: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

By request of User:Hansmuller. Alternatively, if the label and Wikimedia username (P4174) can be revision deleted, that should similarly work. I initially created this item to serve the structural need for recording paid Wikimedians in Residence so that this table does not go out of date and is query-able, however an anonymised item should probably work ok. --T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q66092189

Q66092189: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused Swpb (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Andreasmperu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q62127904

Edris Azizi (Q62127904): Film Director: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Policy Arian (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Item was vandalised. Merged with Edris Azizi (Q65425248) including one sitelink. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 04:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890270

Q61890270: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 05:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Mahir256 (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890577

Q61890577: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 05:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Mahir256 (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q70838689

Q70838689: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wrong creation Koala0090 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by Nikosguard (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Statements created using TOP500 importer created by Amitie 10g and TOP500 importer

When testing my tool, I (using both my main and my bot account) created some properties using my tool, and, once again, I want to delete them.

Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amitie 10g:, Why are you testing stuff here? We have testwikidata for that. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This is, because the bot used actual wikidata.wikidata properties, not available at test.wikidata, also as part of the bot request testing. Then, the tests has been successful, the bot should start its task once it is approved. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: The bot has been approved. So, I want to delete only the new statements created by my main account (but not by my bot one). Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q25523645

pendulum (Q25523645): suspended weight capable of swinging freely from a pivot: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blank entry — Виталий Болбас (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Redirect created by User:1997kB, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890597

Q61890597: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 05:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890567

Q61890567: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890567

Q61890567: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890592

Q61890592: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890573

Q61890573: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890587

Q61890587: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q61890585

Q61890585: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion item created by long-term abuser Alex9777777 (also known as Pechkurov Aleksej). jdx Re: 07:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Deleted by 1997kB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Q29478858

Thomas Weiland (Q29478858): German physicist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q1361143, Wikidata already exists --ZaaraTE (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done Redirect created by User:1997kB, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit group QSv2/20045

Summary {{{summary}}} Author Evolution and evolvability
Number of edits 1 (more statistics) Example edit Q70283351

quickstatements error T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Rafael (stanglavine) msg 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2019/10/14&oldid=1031958598"