Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2021/05/30
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Q106914415: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Test data --LindaGoe (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106914414: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Test data --LindaGoe (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106542602: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Non-notable item. Francisco (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Henry of Langenstein (Q106839145): German theologian: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
It's not duplicated now, but integrated Matlin (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by User:MatSuBot, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
A. D. Eddy (Q107026007): American cleric and writer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
New creation, merged immediately, is superfluous — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by User:Billinghurst, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q26251492: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Not notable, social media promoting, Spam Baby come (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106728860: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Fails notability Rockpeterson (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is used by Q106691803 so would satisfy criterion #3, unless that item is also non-notable. Bovlb (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106691803: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Self-promotion and spam Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 6 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107021776: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Non-notable figure; self promote on simple PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Zeyan Shafiq (Q104822142): Indian Entrepreneur: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
This person Wikipedia page has deleted so this item must be deleted. Visit his deleted Wikipedia page en:Zeyan Shafiq
Thanks.
--Spamblockerr (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep That the Wikipedia article about him was deleted is initially irrelevant. As CEO of the esports team Stalwart Esports (Q105150097) he has a structural benefit. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Keep Wikipedia and Wikidata serve different purposes. Please check Wikidata:Introduction and Wikidata:Notability. --Palaangelino (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106858990: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Promotional -- Emu (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The data object currently has a structural benefit over the book Q106849303. It is of course the case that the data object is not made very well now, but that does not matter when the selection decision is made. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- But the book isn’t notable either. It’s self-published and doesn’t seem to have independent coverage. --Emu (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: I am not familiar with the relevance interpretation of books. That's why I can't say much about it now. But if your opinion is the prevailing opinion, then you have to write that the Wikidata property does not necessarily imply relevance for certain properties such as DNB edition ID (P1292). --Gymnicus (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gymnicus: I don’t understand. Q106849303 isn’t listed in the DNB catalogue and therefore doesn’t have a DNB edition ID (P1292) identifier. --Emu (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: You are absolutely right, of course, that the data object Q106849303 does not have a DNB edition ID (P1292). But, in my opinion, I didn't say that either. What I was getting at is that there are also books in the German National Library (Q27302) that were published by the author himself. If you want, I can tell you examples. So if books that were published by the author themselves are not relevant for Wikidata, then you have to add the data object Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) to the property DNB edition ID (P1292), which has not been the case so far. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gymnicus: No, I don’t think so. My wording was “self-published and doesn’t seem to have independent coverage”. I don’t want to engage in hypotheticals but a DNB edition ID (P1292) identifier would probably be enough for the second part of my sentence. But let’s discuss this once it’s of immediate relevance. (Note however that there isn’t really a consensus on how to approach the question of books. I remember discussions with unclear results as to whether all books (with a minimum amount of seriousness) merit their inclusion into Wikidata.) --Emu (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: For me the book reaches this minimum. It has an Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749). Every “German” book that had such an ID would also have a DNB edition ID (P1292). So the question arises for me: Why do you want to prefer German literature? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gymnicus: Yes, I am very aware of your views on notability as we had numerous discussions in the recent past. More to the point: Anybody can get a Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749), it’s basically user-generated information, so it can’t provide notability. If we accepted that every book is notable per se and in being notable it provides structural notability to the author, we would basically give up the concept of notability.
- I feel that there is nothing more for us two to discuss at this point: You maintain that the book is notable. I do not.
- PS: Kindly refrain from accusations against me (“prefer German literature”). You have already been warned against personal attacks. --Emu (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: For me the book reaches this minimum. It has an Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749). Every “German” book that had such an ID would also have a DNB edition ID (P1292). So the question arises for me: Why do you want to prefer German literature? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gymnicus: No, I don’t think so. My wording was “self-published and doesn’t seem to have independent coverage”. I don’t want to engage in hypotheticals but a DNB edition ID (P1292) identifier would probably be enough for the second part of my sentence. But let’s discuss this once it’s of immediate relevance. (Note however that there isn’t really a consensus on how to approach the question of books. I remember discussions with unclear results as to whether all books (with a minimum amount of seriousness) merit their inclusion into Wikidata.) --Emu (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: You are absolutely right, of course, that the data object Q106849303 does not have a DNB edition ID (P1292). But, in my opinion, I didn't say that either. What I was getting at is that there are also books in the German National Library (Q27302) that were published by the author himself. If you want, I can tell you examples. So if books that were published by the author themselves are not relevant for Wikidata, then you have to add the data object Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) to the property DNB edition ID (P1292), which has not been the case so far. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gymnicus: I don’t understand. Q106849303 isn’t listed in the DNB catalogue and therefore doesn’t have a DNB edition ID (P1292) identifier. --Emu (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: I am not familiar with the relevance interpretation of books. That's why I can't say much about it now. But if your opinion is the prevailing opinion, then you have to write that the Wikidata property does not necessarily imply relevance for certain properties such as DNB edition ID (P1292). --Gymnicus (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- But the book isn’t notable either. It’s self-published and doesn’t seem to have independent coverage. --Emu (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Emu: You seem to be well informed about the Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749). In contrast, your level of knowledge about the DNB edition ID (P1292) leaves a lot to be desired or you hide your actual knowledge. Because the DNB edition ID (P1292) are not much different from the Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749). The German National Library (Q27302) collects all literary works published in Germany and, in principle, makes them available to the population. The German National Library (Q27302) does not do a relevance check and creates a data object in its database for all literary works. Sometimes a data object is also created for the author in the associated Integrated Authority File (Q36578). The only real “relevance criterion” for the literary works is that they must have been published in Germany. So, from my point of view, if you see the DNB edition ID (P1292) as relevant, you also have to look at the Amazon Standard Identification Number (P5749) that way. In addition, if you see the DNB edition ID (P1292) as relevant, then you can look forward to data objects for the 2021 editions (1227371446, 1228035997, 1228170169, 1229709703, 1230435220, 1231922230, 1233693034) of the Markkleeberger Stadtjournal (997244380) here. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please try not to muddy the water. If you wish to discuss the German Pflichtexemplarrecht, try to find a more appropriate place. This discussion isn’t about the DNB at Ll. As you have been repeatedly told in the past, the argumemt “but X is notable why not Y” does not work. --Emu (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete - self-promotion -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q84557583: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No site links for this non-notable person. Green Giant (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Have a ORCID ID, also ha publicated many book. So it seem to be notable by Criterion #2 and #3. --Fralambert (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t think he is that notable and this item is part of a crosswiki promotional campaign. From his ORCID page, I’ve looked up several of his books and they are all self-published: COSMOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND PHYSICS, AN OCEAN OF SOULS, and THE SELF CRITICISM OF SCIENCE. The only books that mention a publisher are ones like UNIVERSAL CONSIOUSNESS, which was published by Think.Lab, a group run by none other than Alexis Karpouzos himself. --Green Giant (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106849303: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Part of a crosswiki campaign of self-promotion. Green Giant (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:Request for update
| itemid = Q106849303 | reason = I have update some data, so please update my wikidata
}} --BrPratikSinha (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
{{subst:Request for update
| itemid = Q106858990 | reason = I have updated some data, so please update this wikidata
}} --BrPratikSinha (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete definitely self-promotion -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Zeyan Shafiq (Q104822142): Indian Entrepreneur: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Self-Promotion already deleted from wikipedia --2401:4900:3111:1642:3523:21F:896E:DA65 08:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted by Bencemac (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106869709: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
I currently see no relevance for this data object. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- :: @ Gymnicus: hey please don’t remove the game. Thanks
Q106957860: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Self-promotion, no notability (yet had been deleted). --Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106974366: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
No notability (self-promotion through small wikis). --Андрей Романенко (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Q106369757: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Self promotion. Wolverène (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107031037: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Vanity page, no assertion of notability. See this diff..
- Deleted by Multichill (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107031037: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Vanity page, no assertion of notability. See this diff..
- Deleted by Multichill (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107021854: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Non notable PQR01 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107035732: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Deleted page وسام (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Q107035622: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Deleted page وسام (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Textual Scholarship, Medical Tradition, and Mahāyāna Buddhist Ideals in Tibet (Q102095459): scientific article published in 2003: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
Duplicate Wilbur the whale (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Redirect created by User:Wilbur the whale, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)