Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/09/16

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

Q113844746

Q113844746: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notable? (also delete the inbound work links) BrokenSegue (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q7389428

SDET (Q7389428): computer performance benchmark: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No notable sitelink. The former one is redirected apge 迴廊彼端 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted has en.wp sitelink --Emu (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113989349

Q113989349: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blogger without notability Drakosh (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113702883

Q113702883: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears non-notable and promotional Jamie7687 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113535356

Q113535356: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Questionably notable, likely promotional; cross-wiki spam by one specific account. --Daniuu (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible recreation of empty item Q112226936. Bovlb (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113817597

Q113817597: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Page in eswiki deleted as promo; item created by sock of Samuelle Santiago (talk • contribs • logs). –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113472456

Q113472456: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable person; deleted on ptwiki per AFD. Francisco (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108933670

Q108933670: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blank. — Afeef (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113993448

Q113993448: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam. Wolverène (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q111461744

vessel traffic service (Q111461744): maritime traffic control system for given body of water: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No claims, no sitelinks, no links here. Fidoez (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113564300

Q113564300: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I fail to see how a random subvillage would have any notability. JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@JustAnotherArchivist: It has its name and area marked on Google Maps. There also are some other "Something Nagar" nearby. It might simply be notable as an administrative subdivision. It would be useful to get input from someone from India. --Tengwar (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tengwar I feel like if it is an administrative subdivision, this should appear in official government sources, but I couldn't find anything searching for the Tamil names (though that doesn't mean too much, and knowledge of the regional/local government websites would probably be required). I suppose Google Maps does count as a serious reference, but does it establish notability? (Tangent: Anyone can add their business to Google Maps by simply signing up at Google and receiving a postcard to the specified address. Does that mean those businesses are suddenly notable?) Worth mentioning also that their boundary of Thekkalur does not include Gandhi Nagar. –JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JustAnotherArchivist: Google Maps is not a definite proof of notability, but a strong hint that the item may be notable. Further data is necessary, but I'd not delete it without contacting some editors from India. I asked in the Hindi Wiki embassy: hi:विकिपीडिया:दूतावास#Notability_of_Gandhi_Nagar,_Thekkalur.

And of course a business is not notable on its own, but an administrative division would be notable on its own, assuming it's real and not just a joke or incorrect data.

EDIT: I see now that you have mentioned Tamil and I have asked on Hindi Wikipedia. I don't have any knowledge of which Indian language is spoken where. I hope it's not a big mistake. --Tengwar (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@JustAnotherArchivist@Tengwar let's wait a week yet, and if there is no additional input, then we will delete this unreferenced item Estopedist1 (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@JustAnotherArchivist, @Estopedist1: I reposted the request on Tamil Wiki embassy (ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:தமிழ்த் தூதரகம் (Tamil Embassy)#Notability_of_Gandhi_Nagar,_Thekkalur). This page seems to be more actively used, so we might actually see an answer. --Tengwar (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted one week passed. No additional input. @Tengwar Estopedist1 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q111142296

Q111142296: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hard to find serious sources. Created on March 2022 by user:Mohammadmahdi khalilpour gargarii Estopedist1 (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Bovlb (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113995781

Q113995781: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test page. Syunsyunminmin (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Bovlb (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113989825

Paris Kinsey (Q113989825): Influencer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Clearly promotional Rockpeterson (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Bovlb (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: Wikidata talks

First of several rounds of items without external notability created by Rdrg109, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/03#Queries_for_metadata_of_the_presentations_of_Wikidata_Data_Reuse_Days_2022 -- Emu (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep I created the item for the presentations because, from my perspective, they are notable according to the 2nd rule of WD:N (the rule is shown below and my reasoning is described further below)

It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.

Are they clearly identifiable conceptual entities? Yes, the presentations are clearly identifiable conceptual entities because each of them have been described in a website that have been archived and saved in the relevant statements by using the property archive URL (P1065), so even if the website changes, the items will still be clearly identifiable conceptual entities. Thanks to the property described at URL (P973) and archive URL (P1065), these entities will be clearly identifiable as long as the Wayback Machine (Q648266) exists. With this query, you can confirm by yourself that all of these items have described at URL (P973) and archive URL (P1065).

Are the entities notable (in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references? Yes, each of the presentations have been described in a website in https://diff.wikimedia.org which we can consider as a serious and publicly available reference (at least in the domain of Wikimedia events which is the classification of the items being discussed in this deletion request)

(please ping on reply) Rdrg109 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rdrg109 With all due respect, but self-published information of a medium-sized organization isn’t a serious source. We would never even consider accepting such items if they weren’t in the Wikimedia realm. But there is no reason to treat Wikimedia-related items any differently. --Emu (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: When you say

We would never even consider accepting such items if they weren’t in the Wikimedia realm. But there is no reason to treat Wikimedia-related items any differently.

Do you also mean that Wikidata items shouldn't be created for presentations at conferences or events? Just as I did it with Wikidata Data Reuse Days 2022 (Q110886417), I'm planning to create Wikidata items for presentations in other conferences (e.g. Chaos Communication Camp 2019 (Q47777714), FrOSCon (Q56291516), Datenspuren (Q42676216), Python Conference (Q3411158), etc.), but, first, I want to make sure there's a clear consensus on the notability of these items, so that based on that, I start adding them or start raising awareness on the problem of conference presentations not being notable under the current notability guidelines.

I feel that just as conferences are valuable sources of information, so are the presentation in those conferences. Thankfully, some people have shared recordings of conference presentations on the Internet (e.g. media.ccc.de (Q80729951)) and by watching those recordings I've learnt relevant information on different areas of knowledge, so now I want to give back to the community by structuring and organizing that information on Wikidata.

Rdrg109 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rdrg109 I’m doubtful about the notability of individual presentations, but of course, I can’t speak for anybody else. While I do sympathize with the idea of querying presentations, my problem with this is twofold:

There are generally no external sources for those presentations (exceptions like the talks of David Kriesel (Q82042625) just prove the rule) so we are 100% dependent on the information of the conferences’ websites. This leads to
the problem that conferences could create notability out of thin air – and not only notability for individual presentations but also for the people that hold them, their topics, etc. Even if we limit ourselves to the most prestigious conferences (with the problem of determining them), this opens a big gateway for people who fancy an item for themself.

Maybe you should bring this up at WD:PC or WD:N’s talk page? --Emu (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

~~{{not done}}~~, needs wider discussion first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, but the “wider discussion” would be needed to amend the notability guidelines to allow for those items, not to delete items without any clear reason for notability under the current regime. Especially as you have a history of trying to make every Wikimedia item notable. --Emu (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete – Ich hier nur den Löschantrag von Emu zustimmen. Er hat hier auch schon deutlich begründet, warum keine Notabilität vorliegt. Der wichtigste Punkt dabei ist, dass es keine glaubwürdigen und öffentlich verfügbaren Belege gibt. Die Internetseite der Veranstaltung ist kein solcher Beleg, den ein solcher Beleg muss unabhängig sein. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Emu@Mike Peel@Rdrg109 over two weeks passed since last comment. What is the situation here? What is the proper or easiest way to move on with this RFD? Estopedist1 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 It’s one installment of an ongoing ~~conflict~~ disagreement between several users regarding some sort of “special notability” for Wikimedians and their ~~fancruft~~ projects. But to address the specific problem of those talks: I still don’t understand which of the WD:N criteria are supposed to be met here. --Emu (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comment of Emu on this information being "self-published information of a medium-sized organization". However, I see this as a problem, because from my experience, it is very unlikely that other "serious" website, besides the official website of the conference, describe each of the presentations at a conference. This means that we won't be able to create Wikidata items for conference presentations until "serious" sources start describing each presentation at a conference (honestly, I have never seen a "serious" source do this, and even if there are some that do this, there will be others that don't). This leaves content, that some people might consider useful educational resources, out of Wikidata.

I believe there's a bit of misalignment between Wikidata:Notability and the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

A presentation in a conference discuss content that can be considered for some people as educational and yet these items are requested to be deleted, while a slap (e.g. Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident (Q111411145)) isn't. I understand why this happens: The latter has been described by external sources of information, while the former isn't, that explains my first statement in this reply. I'm also aware that some people might consider a slap as educational content, since the behavior can be studied from the point of view of behavioral sciences, the reception of society from the point of view of sociology, etc. Similarly, a conference presentation can be considered educational content from other points of view.

Regardless of whether these items get deleted or not, I have started a topic in WikiProject Events (revision) to discuss on creating Wikidata items for conference presentations.

-- Rdrg109 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

To me it's pretty clear that there is no consensus here, which is why it needs discussion elsewhere. But I already tried closing this one, won't try again. Mike Peel (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

side-notice. I discovered that our Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria mentions "any meetup pages when meetup is only for users in one wiki." Maybe it helps to move on with this RFD Estopedist1 (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think that this applies to the problem at hand. --Emu (talk) Emu (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

as @Mike Peel suggested, then this long-pending Wikimedia-related and difficult discussion should be moved somewhere else. I suggest to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Events, where some info is already located (chapter "On creating Wikidata items for presentations at conferences") Estopedist1 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but the question is: What is the default decision, i. e. keep or delete? And I have not yet read any reason why those items are covered by the current notability policy. So the default position would be to delete. --Emu (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu yes, default position is deleting per WD:Notability. And in future we can undelete them, if someone will find strong arguments in favour of undeleting Estopedist1 (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu, Estopedist1: I think the default position is keeping, since this could at least be covered under 'structural need', and is otherwise ambiguous. I'm not sure there is a convincing argument for deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I've already made it clear in Special:Diff/1606652681 why I think these items meet Wikidata:Notability and some users have presented their arguments. I still think these items meet the point no. 2 of Wikidata:Notability and shouldn't be deleted (

Keep). In this reply, I'll present my counterarguments to the arguments described so far.

With regards to the inexistence of external sources besides the self-published information of the conference (mentioned by @Emu: (revision) and @Gymnicus: (revision)): I agree, the presentations of Wikidata Data Reuse Days are only described in the official website of the conference (i.e. they don't have other external sources). However, the official website can be considered a serious reference. Yes, I'm aware this is a self-published source, but this is not enough for saying this information is not serious. This is indirectly endorsed by Wikidata:Verifiability by linking to the guidelines in English Wikipedia, where it is stated that self-published sources are generally prohibited, but with some criteria. The website I used for the references of the items I created meet the 5 items of the criteria mentioned in English Wikipedia. Therefore, I've used a serious and publicly available reference which make those items meet the item 2 of Wikidata:Notability.

With regards to Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria remarking meetup pages (mentioned by @Estopedist1:(revision)): As stated in the first line of that page, those guidelines are for sitelinks to pages belonging to Wikipedia. These presentations were not described in Wikipedia, they were described in https://diff.wikimedia.org (e.g. Q111172375 was described in [[1]]). Therefore, those guidelines don't apply to these items.

This is not a counterargument, but my opinion on the comment by Emu (revision) on conference presentations being a gateway on creating notability out of thin air, To me, this is like saying that we shouldn't create Wikidata items for any book because some of them might contain non-neutral information or blatant advertising. Yes, some conferences could be organized with the sole intention of advertising, but we shouldn't put them all in the same bag and leave them all out of Wikidata. Conferences on academic disciplines are also carried over around the world with the purpose of knowledge sharing and strengthen research. While creating items for these presentations might have some drawbacks, we are also helping to the discoverability of such educational knowledge.

(please ping on reply) Rdrg109 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rdrg109 it is your solo project, and seems that you are the only one who thinks that these conferences items presented during Wikidata Data Reuse Days 2022 (Q110886417) meets WD:Notability. But we must to move on with this RFD, our decision seems to be

Delete. If in future you will find new evidences for notability, then we can consider to undelete these items Estopedist1 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I don't see how this being a solo project is a reason for moving on with this RFD. I'm aware of the guidelines in Wikidata:List of policies and guidelines, and I haven't read such rule.

In my comment above, I've explained that these items meet point no. 2 of Wikidata:Notability and that the sources meet the guidelines endorsed by Wikidata:Verifiability, Self-published sources (online and paper) and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, and no one have replied with the flaws of my argument. Therefore, I'm considering it as valid as of the time of this writing.

I think in order to move on with this RFD, someone first would need to prove that my argument is not valid. Given that my argument is based on Wikidata:Notability, to do otherwise would imply that we acted contrary to what it is stated in Wikidata:Notability in this RFD.

Rdrg109 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: (due to last comment on 13 September 2022) your comment "I think the default position is keeping, since this could at least be covered under 'structural need', and is otherwise ambiguous. I'm not sure there is a convincing argument for deletion". Please explain this "structural need". As user:Emu already explains, we don't have independent serious sources about these conferences, just wiki-internal stuff. Seems obvious that not meeting WD:Notability--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I can provide some examples on these items fulfilling a structural need. Some humans are linked to those presentations with participant in (P1344) (e.g. Lydia Pintscher (Q18016466)participant in (P1344)Best practices for reusing Wikidata’s data (Q110912271), Lucas Werkmeister (Q57387675)participant in (P1344)Building a simple web app using Wikidata data (Q111172342)). The item Wikidata Data Reuse Days 2022 (Q110886417) is linked to the presentations with significant event (P793) (e.g. Wikidata Data Reuse Days 2022 (Q110886417)significant event (P793)Building family trees and other diagrams with Wikidata (Q110969739), Wikidata Data Reuse Days 2022 (Q110886417)significant event (P793)Building a simple web app using Wikidata data (Q111172342))).

It is true that we don't have independent serious sources, but we have self-published sources that are considered valid under the guidelines mentioned in Self-published sources (online and paper) and Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves (these two are linked by Wikidata:Verifiability). This is enough for these items to meet item no. 2 of Wikidata:Notability.

Rdrg109 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rdrg109 this enwiki link about self-publishing says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable." In Wikidata, self-publishing sources can only be additional sources. But these additional sources are not sufficient to meet WD:Notability. However, due to Mike Peel concern and opinion by user:Emu (see User:Emu/Notability#Wikimedia-related_stuff), we can move this RFD to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Events without deleting anything. I am also notifying user:Угрожаемого положения who thinks these conference series are spam Estopedist1 (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not too happy about this. This discussion has been open for many months and I don’t see any new arguments. This case is ready for decision, we have probably heard all arguments. --Emu (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done There is still no consensus. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q34386391

Q34386391: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wikinews categories have to be lied to Wikipédia articles and don't have separated item. Wyslijp16 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16 I guess that Wikinews categories meets WD:Notability, so we don't need to delete these items. See e.g. Category:Postal systems in France (Q34523660) Estopedist1 (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: The problem is that Wikinews categories have to be in the subject item and not in a separated category for "wikimedia categories". Wyslijp16 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikinews categories are contained in the normal data object and not in the category data object. Wyslijp16 (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16 I guess that Wikinews categories Wikinews:Catégorie:La Poste (entreprise française) and Wikinews:Catégorie:La Poste (France) are duplicates. Am I correct? If so, we should merge them in Wikinews. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: For this particular example, they are not duplicates, La Poste (France) is the postal system and La Poste (entreprise française) is the company La Poste (which also has for example La Banque Postale or La Poste Mobile). Wyslijp16 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16 I did a standalone item for the postal system Q113861290, and company is at Q373724. Are we satisfied now? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Can you please delete the Q113861290 item, I mooved the Wikinews category into the postal system item. Wyslijp16 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16 I don't speak French, but now what we do with Q34523660? I guess that this item should be linked with mail (Q49845)? Estopedist1 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I propose to link :

Catégorie:La Poste (France) with Q3399809 (Poste en France)
Catégorie:La Poste (entreprise française) with Q373724 (La Poste)
and to define Catégorie:Postes like an "internal category" (in French/in English)

I ping @SleaY (an Wikinews administrator) and @Topelie (an active user) to get an rewiew about this. Wyslijp16 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16 : what do you think about this :

mail (Q49845) - Category:Postal systems (Q7215680)
mail in France (Q3399809) - Category:Postal systems in France (Q34523660)
La Poste (Q373724) - Category:La Poste (french company) (Q34386391)
La Poste Mobile (Q113297728) - Category:La Poste Mobile (Q9415120)
La Banque Postale (Q3206431) - Category:La Banque Postale (Q113861290)

--Topelie (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Topelie: I agree for all of this except mail Q49845 - Category:Postal systems Q7215680. I think that the Category:Postal systems category is here to categorise other categories, so it's an internal category... Wyslijp16 (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wyslijp16: solution per Topelie is implemented with some adjusts (related to "mail (Q49845) - Category:Postal systems (Q7215680)").

Q34386391 is emptied and waiting to be deleted.
Wikinews categories from mail (Q49845) is moved to Category:Postal systems (Q7215680)

I guess we can close this RFD Estopedist1 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Merged to La Poste (Q373724). Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113683120

DJ Newmark (Q113683120): American DJ: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Fails notability Rockpeterson (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rockpeterson probably

Keep per given sources Estopedist1 (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done given the described at URL (P973) values, but they should be moved to references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113687167

Iosif Dounar (Q113687167): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The headmaster of a secondary school, so technically not an ordinary teacher and can be described more with sources to pass WD:N#2 (however, all I found is some another person with the same full name from Belarus who was 'eliminated' by the Soviet regime, he was not a teacher at all). Anyway such sort of items is still an issue because normally we don't create ones for every school's head teacher, for example. --Wolverène (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Right here also - Q113687233, Q113687238, Q113687248, Q113687251. --Wolverène (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

items creator is user:Aestrum. Can you find serious sources for these five items? Otherwise we will delete all as "fails WD:Notability" Estopedist1 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a link in the entity references to the official school webpage mentioning those people. According to WD:Notability: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." the official webpage is serious and publicly available and contains just enough of the info presented in the related WD entities. Once more data is found on the web - we will add more attributes to WD with the necessary references. As for the "normally we don't create ones for every school's head teacher" - is not an argument since this is not Wikipedia with its meaning of notability, and adding full teachers collective of a small village school is totally fine for Wikidata. Aestrum (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aestrum We generally don’t consider self-published information to be enough. --Emu (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with @Emu. We need independent sources to meet WD:Notability Estopedist1 (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Added links to NLB authority ID records for this person and also RSL for his book. Aestrum (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done seems to meet notability requirements. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113638705

coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Q113638705): symbol of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is part of the Coat of arms of Lithuania (Q188047), therefore this separate wikidata item is not necessary. Pay attention that there are no separate wikidata items for the Coat of arms of the French Empire, Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Poland, etc. --Pofka (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka rather merging than deleting, I guess. Item's creator is user:Лобачев Владимир Estopedist1 (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Many sections do not yet have articles: Coat of arms of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (Q2452777), coat of arms of Congress Poland (Q3367022), coat of arms of Russian Empire (Q2325440), coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Finland (Q11709372), Heraldry of the Holy Roman Empire (Q1136258). This does not mean that they are not needed. The absence at the moment of an article on the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania does not mean that it cannot appear in the near future. If there was a large European state for 500 years, then why can't there be an article about the coat of arms of this state? -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Coat of arms of the Belarusian People's Republic of 1918 (Q111893527), the Coat of arms of Belarus of 1995 (Q179602), the Coat of arms of the Republic of Lithuania (Q188047), the Coat of arms of the Vitebsk region (Q2498738), the Coats of arms of many cities and several provinces of the Russian Empire, the Coats of arms of the Polish and Russian nobility are based on the Coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is a rather large and interesting topic, described in many sources in different languages. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

User Лобачев Владимир is just a Russian internet troll (likely a paid troll as he is trolling nearly daily) and he was recently blocked in Wikimedia Commons for malicious trolling in Lithuania's and other countries affairs (see: 1, 2). He was causing absurd disputes and constant edit warring, therefore do not let him to drag you into various absurd. The sooner you ignore his trolling based on national hatred of other nations – the better will be for everyone. He is directly targeting Russia's neighboring countries history, national symbols, etc. This topic is covered in a dedicated section: Coat of arms of Lithuania#Official coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and this section will never become a separate article because it is the same symbol and it is part of the same country's history (see: History of Lithuania). Consequently, @Estopedist1: there is no need for a separate wiki data item about exactly the same item (symbol). User @Guido den Broeder: clearly identified his bad faith aims in the previous discussions as well. Pofka (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pofka I am aware of this user’s history (although it was Moldova and not Lithuania the last time I had to deal with this kind of discussion). That doesn’t really answer the question why this item shouldn’t exist. Please explain. --Emu (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: Because it is one and the same thing. It is like creating two items for blue (Q1088), yellow (Q943), etc. Coat of arms of Lithuania from the 15th or 16th century is the same as the Coat of arms of Lithuania in 2022. Pofka (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nominator's rationale. No need for two wikidata items for one thing, so the empty one (the one that is nominated) should be deleted.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are articles even for individual voivodeships (coat of arms of Novogrudok Voivodeship (1507-1795) (Q82433349), coat of arms of Podlaskie Voivodeship (1513–1795) (Q85315061), coat of arms of Smolensk Voivodeship (Q86423190), coat of arms of Trakai Voivodeship (Q85412188)), then why not have an article on the coat of arms of the state? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Voivodeships were historical administrative divisions of Lithuania which no longer exist. The Coat of arms of Lithuania now is the same symbol (item) as it was back in the 15th century. Pofka (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Grand Duchy has also been non-existent since 1795. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Mike Peel, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is not over yet. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113634575

Q113634575: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam. Not notable. No links to any Wikimedia project. Njd-de (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Has 9 entries in IMDb and at least one leading role in Aaja Mexico Challiye. --HarryNº2 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

deletion discussion at enwiki en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikander Ghuman, but I also found [2], [3]. Seems that

Keep Estopedist1 (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to ping @Njd-de Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113801823

Q113801823: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Rockpeterson (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Has commons category. Bovlb (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rockpeterson@Bovlb Commons category doesn't imply notability (see WD:Notability). But this motorcycle type seems to be existed, e.g. [4].

Keep? Estopedist1 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Estopedist1 It kinda does imply notability, see User:Emu/Notability#Commons_categories and the link provided there. This should be changed but there is little hope for consensus. --Emu (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikidata_talk:Notability#Item_4_is_confusing and Wikidata:Requests for comment/Creating new Wikidata items for all Commons categories. It's surprising, and it's ripe for abuse, but that's what the policy current says. Bovlb (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Emu, Bovlb: Yes ... but [5] doesn't find anything about this? Moved to the general category at [6], and commons:Category:Beta Eikon and the item deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel A very Solomonic Judgment! :-) --Emu (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q3334218

NBA Action (Q3334218): cancelled video game: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Cancelled video game. Was only linked to an article on fr.wp since redirected --Jean-Fred (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Were there any announcements and reports about this game before it was cancelled? Are there perhaps even prototypes or similar? If so, it should be kept with the appropriate additional statements to represent that it was never published. –JustAnotherArchivist (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Could not find anything at The Cutting Room Floor (Q55635148), which usually documents such things. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe redirect/merge with NBA Action (Q3334214)? BrokenSegue (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: merge or delete, unless someone wants to delve into topic and can fulfill @JustAnotherArchivist suggestions Estopedist1 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Digging deeper, merge with NBA Action (Q3334214) does seem appropriate. Sega Retro clarified that for me:

The ~~Mega Drive~~Sega Saturn game NBA Action’s working title was “NBA Action '96” ;
there was a cancelled game with the same name(s) on Sega 32X (extension of the Mega Drive)

So the original item was about that one Mega Drive game ; ~~merge with NBA Action (Q3334214) was completely the right thing.~~ Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Confused myself again between Mega Drive and Sega Saturn >_>. Oh well, merge is done now, it’s probably fine I think. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Jean-Frédéric, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted my own merge, and turned into a proper cancelled/unreleased video game (Q61475894) item. There’s enough external ID, pre-cancellation coverage and overall confusion on its existence that I think an item is valuable. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted BrokenSegue (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113622280

Q113622280: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Recreation of Q111848244, but that was empty. This has claims, including identifiers. Bovlb (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113909137

Q113909137: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Accidental creation - author requesting deletion (not actually a current Australian Classification content descriptor, but a historical label) --Harryboyles (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep We can still use it for ratings that previously used this content descriptor @Harryboyles:--Trade (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep Thanks Trade for updating the description to "***former*** Australian Classification..." - that's much more useful Harryboyles (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted BrokenSegue (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q6068211

Q6068211: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Pr. Kadı Message 19:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113895289

Q113895289: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Probably fails WD:Notability, but is in Turkish, so I open discussion Estopedist1 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113275970

Q113275970: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

I restored this item after a request, based mainly on Biyografya ID (P7023). But looking more precisely to this ID, I don't think that it implies notability. --Lymantria (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment It appears to be a recreation of Q110857045, Q112225519, Q112342663, Q112913447. Bovlb (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

... so if we decide to keep it, we should probably merge them all. Bovlb (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

Q112678397 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q112276218 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q112035253 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q110967692 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q110965314 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q110622711 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q109888288 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q109340699 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q108327797 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

All items created by user:Gimrj. Per Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User block request Gimrj (rationale: Created promotional/non notable items, check all the creations as well) Estopedist1 (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q32178495

Devil River (Q32178495): river in Tasman District, New Zealand: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The river is already catalogued via Q5267319 --Ulanwp (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Conflict between ceb:Devil_River_(suba_sa_Nuzeland,_lat_-40,98,_long_172,73) and ceb:Devil River (suba sa Nuzeland, Nelson) Bovlb (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Please merge to the relevant item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113911513

Q113911513: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Questionably notable, likely promotional; many search results for the name/phrase, but very few about the specific company Jamie7687 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113851821

Fuze III (Q113851821): French Minecraft YouTuber: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Afeef (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It has sources, why do you want to delete? --Lussollys (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It has a source and no identifiers. Bovlb (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Relevance results from 2.55 million subscribers [7]. --HarryNº2 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Not because of subscriber count (which doesn’t prove anything) but because of some media coverage (although it’s probably a stretch to call it described by source (P1343)). I added two sources at the field of work (P101) statement. --Emu (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done per references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted BrokenSegue (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064698

Mira (Q108064698): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064714

Rakel Colt (Q108064714): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064785

Sören Blom (Q108064785): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064762

Agneta (Q108064762): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064720

Vilgot (Q108064720): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064777

Anna-Carin Colt (Q108064777): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q108064781

Märta Colt (Q108064781): fictional character in the television series Mirakel: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item for fictitious character only appearing on one program Sabelöga (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not done Not a valid deletion request per Wikidata:Notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113574328

Q113574328: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Afeef (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q113288622

Q113288622: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Afeef (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Q7111811

Q7111811: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No claims, all sitelinks were removed (either deleted or moved to disambiguation), the item itself should potentially be a lexeme instead Mormegil (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)