Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/08/19

Delete, no notability discernible, the only third-party search results are obviously promotional fake 'articles' in minor news outlets. Commons pictures are up for deletion. –JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Lymantria (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q113553561

Q113553561: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Nonsense. Achim55 (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q113296531

Q113296531: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam and promotion Renvoy (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q25905428

Q25905428: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item, the connected page was deleted Sakretsu (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Lexeme:L640116

invalid ID (L640116): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Не является идиомой, свободное сочетание слов. 4th-otaku (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment Google translation says « Not an idiom, a free combination of words. » I'm not sure if it should be deleted or not... Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- The words "извержение" (an eruption) and "вулкан" (a volcano) can be used independently. The combination of worlds doesn't have a known commonly-used figurative meaning. I believe it could be deleted. --Wolverène (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q110505393

Q110505393: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Afeef (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@PaSova Care to weigh in? --Emu (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete per simple Google search, hard or impossible to find serious sources. Hence, very likely fails WD:N (criterion 2). In addition, linking to other items only via property different from (P1889)--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q112055954

Moussa Djouder (Q112055954): photographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notablity Rockpeterson (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done some independent media coverage --Emu (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q111557712

Q111557712: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, Advertising ComeBacks (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: All items created by KaustLibraryBot (talk • contribs • logs) on 2022-02-27

KaustLibraryBot (talk • contribs • logs) created batch of items on February 27th, but the bot messed up the titles of thesis and the authors themselves. The result are strange items with author of the thesis as "Label" and title of the thesis as "Description", with assigned ORCIDs of authors, causing various duplicates. As long as no bot operator is willing to fix the issue, I promote all these items to be deleted. List of edits could be found here. See also user's talk and Project chat — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

the bot appears to be unapproved. should we ban them from main namespace? BrokenSegue (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with blocking the bot from main namespace until it is approved. --Ameisenigel (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep These items have been cleaned up now and should no longer require deletion. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Not done per Quesotiotyo --Emu (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q111260327

Q111260327: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doubtful scholarly article. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202203.0233/v2 says "This version is not peer-reviewed" আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep We host articles from ArXiv.org and they are not peer reviewed either. --RAN (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q112173769

Q112173769: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Seems promotional Rockpeterson (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done per sitelinks --Emu (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q112167525

Q112167525: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? Trade (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete Many Google hits, but likely fails WD:N (criterion 2 = serious references). The burden of proof lies on the creator (unfortunately anonym)--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Q30066282

Irina Getmanenko (Q30066282): Russian feldsher: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No notability (just someone's mother). --Андрей Романенко (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep meets WD:N (criterion 3 = structural need)--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Formally yes, but in most of cases the community don't feel busy creating items for parents of notable persons, although sometimes the notability of those who known mainly just for giving birth can be 'drawn' even regardless of the WD:N #3 (they give interviews about their notable children, etc.). If such kind of items is permitted we would make them a general thing, then we might've been agree with items for known relatives, pets, living houses, ... There should be a borderline. Also we're not sure that a simple feldsher doesn't mind being described by a free-to-edit database. --Wolverène (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wolverène I agree, but parents are special as they are often documented in biographies and prosopographical works. That’s not the case with most other relatives, pets and houses. But the WD:BLP problem has to be considered, that’s why I deleted some potentially problematic statements. But Estopedist1 is right, it does fulfil WD:N #3 notability, so

Not done. --Emu (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wolverène@Emu@Андрей Романенко after reconsidering, I think that at similar cases we still should consider to delete such items, until there is serious source/identifier that a person in question is indeed mentioned somewhere (not only theoretically as hinted by user:Emu). For Irina Getmanenko, if references stated here Q29842899#P25 are not serious, we should delete Q30066282.

Maybe Wikidata:Notability criterion 3 needs to be specified in light of this discussion? Estopedist1 (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That would effectively heighten the burden of proof for WD:N #3 to the level of WD:N #2 thus devoiding it from any substantial meaning. I don’t know – if you look at Rudolf Schumann (Q29842899) it’s not like the sources for his mother are different in quality from those for the other statements. --Emu (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Even the notability of the son of this parent is quite dubious: the article about Russian composer was deleted from Russian wiki as self promotion but stayed in Japanese and Korean wikis where nobody, I guess, can check the cited sources (as far as they are in Russian). There is no reasons to think that there are or will be any biographical sources about this composer to mention his family. For the mother of composer no sources are given at all, obviously. That is not a good idea to keep in WD information that cannot be verified. Андрей Романенко (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right but with three sitelinks to Wikipedia projects, there is no room for Wikidata to question the item’s notability. There are sources given, although not really good ones. --Emu (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: 2nd batch of bulk mention in trial deletion request

Superfluous items. These are items that are not witch trials as first thought but instead are about the act of mentioning of a named witch during a trial proceeding. This act of mentioning of a named witch is modelled already been accused witch items and actual witch trials so these 557 items are unnecessary and just confuse things by keeping them. Please delete Stinglehammer (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)