Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/11/17

< Wikidata:Requests for deletions‎ | Archive‎ | 2022‎ | 11
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q115166566

Q115166566: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty besides labels. --Dorades (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115166554

Q115166554: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty besides labels. --Dorades (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q26097263

Q26097263: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Template deleted Papuass (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q60687848

Phillip Lars Manning (Q60687848): British television paleontologist and university lecturer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q47452529. Requester has merged data to Q47452529 in advance of this request. --Zakhx150 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Done Redirect created by User:Fralambert, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexeme:L737146

invalid ID (L737146): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by mistake in the Lexeme namespace. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q13175807

Q13175807: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Multiple Balyozxane (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115245253

Q115245253: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No indication of notability Bovlb (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114971819

Q114971819: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No strong indication of notability (was blanked by non-author) Bovlb (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114557711

Q114557711: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No relevance recognizable Gymnicus (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gymnicus Q114557711 bezieht sich auf einen klar abgrenzbaren wirklichen Gegenstand. Q114557711 kann mit glaubwürdigen und öffentlich verfügbaren Belegen beschrieben werden. Wikidata:Relevanzkriterien – Wikidata
Q114557711 refers to an instance of  a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. Q114557711 can be described using serious and publicly available references. Wikidata:Notability – Wikidata Granpar (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
However, the data object does not contain any credible and publicly available sources. If you can add some, then I'll change my mind. But according to the current status of the data object, no notability is recognizable. --Gymnicus (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The company is listed with the corresponding professional association (Berufsverband). https://www.vdb-waffen.de/de/mitglieder/waffen-fachgeschaefte/michael_beck_schiesssport-beckde.html The Verband Deutscher Büchsenmacher und Waffenfachhändler (Q110736647). The EU VAT ID can be checked here: https://www.ust-id-prufen.de/ http://ec.europa.eu is not working right now (P3608) Granpar (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus two German-language sources have been added, and EU VAT number (P3608). To be kept, I guess? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it that way, because the first is not an independent source and the second, in my opinion, is not a reputable source. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gymnicus@Granpar I don't speak German, but I tend to agree with user:Gymnicus. By the way, the URL of EU VAT number is not working Estopedist1 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 I totally disagree with you. One of Wikidata's main goals is to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. The entity is notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references and it represents a clearly identifiable material entity. Listing with a "Berufsverband" is, of course, not independent: They only list their members. My sense is that Gymnicus is a requests-for-deletions troll. For example https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=prev&diff=1751522753 in conjunction with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=Ameisenigel&page=Q114679521&wpdate=2022-10-19&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers Have a look at https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Neunkirchen_(Baden) Ristorante Pizzeria "Zur Rose" can no longer be linked to Wikidata due to the deletion of Q requested by Gymnicus. In the next paragraph, this was still possible. BTW I am not responsible for the problem with P3608 Granpar (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar we need serious sources. E.g. your mentioned Q114679521 haven't them. Hence correctly deleted by user:Ameisenigel. Please add serious sources for Q114557711 and we will not delete it Estopedist1 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 By this you imply that Wikivoyage is not a serious source. https://de.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Zitierhilfe&page=Neunkirchen_%28Baden%29&id=1491790&wpFormIdentifier=titleform If Ameisenigel acted formally correctly, the rules according to which he acted must be adapted. What serious sources decide who? Granpar (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar Wikivoyage is OK, but please give correct Wikivoyage URL. What is serious source and what is not are sometimes disputable. Ultimate decision will be made by administrator(s) Estopedist1 (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
You wrote Wikivoyage is a serious source. So, if Wikivoyage is a serious source, I expect the recovery of Q114679521. Then https://de.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Neunkirchen_(Baden)&oldid=1491790 can finally be linked to the restaurant Zur Rose mentioned at Vikivoyage. I have already provided a serious source for Q114557711 Verband Deutscher Büchsenmacher und Waffenfachhändler is a professional association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_association Granpar (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar if Wikivoyage hasn't standalone article for this restaurant called Zur Rose, then there is no point to restore Q114679521. But the company in question (i.e. Q114557711) can be kept as being a member of Q110736647 Estopedist1 (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  Delete @Estopedist1 But Q110736647 is some random business association with some 1.600 members. Pretty much anyone in this business can join, I don’t think that this confers notability.
Incidentally, @Granpar, you are on very thin ice when calling somebody a troll just because they don’t conform to your idea of notability. I would strongly urge you not to repeat this wording. --Emu (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I refer to the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
"Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: (...) to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable (...) or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't clearly identifiable? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't a material entity? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 can't be described using serious and publicly available references? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Q110736647 provides a source that makes Q114557711 verifiable. Granpar (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Emu. I was mistaken. If this association encompasses about 1600 companies, then any company which haven't serious sources should be deleted from Wikidata. Hence   Delete Estopedist1 (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu@Estopedist1
I refer to the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
"Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: (...) to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable (...) or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't clearly identifiable? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't a material entity? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 can't be described using serious and publicly available references? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Granpar (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am of the opinion that a membership list of a business association is not a serious reference in the sense of WD:N #2 as it the offline equivalent of “user-generated content”. Wikidata’s notability criteria are intentionally vague so it’s no good to stick to the words and derive conclusions based solely on that.
Admins have different opinions about the meaning of the provisions of the criteria, if you are interested in (a part of) mine, see: User:Emu/Notability#“serious_and_publicly_available_references”. --Emu (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar side-notice. Try to make article in dewiki, and if it will survive, it is automatically notable for Wikidata Estopedist1 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu The accuracy of the information provided by the members is validated by the professional association at the latest with the payment of the contribution. Is therefore not user-generated content. Have you read https://www.vdb-waffen.de/d/n25v09am.pdf?
But even then there remains no. 3: "It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." Granpar (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so your argument is that they have to pay to be on that list? In a way, that’s even worse. And as for WD:N #3: Which item is made more useful? --Emu (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Indirectly, yes. I am alluding to the information to be provided in the form. There are business relations between the professional association and its bank and its members. In the case of the members, there are business relationships with the professional association and the members' bank. I refer to $$ 10 and 11 GwG (Geldwäschegesetz (German money-laundering act). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gwg_2017/index.html#BJNR182210017BJNE001202123 I hope you do not interpret the pages of the Federal Ministry as non notable user content. There are due diligence obligations with regard to customers.
The linked Verband Deutscher Büchsenmacher und Waffenfachhändler (Q110736647) Granpar (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu Granpar (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Also beim besten Willen, nach dieser Logik sollte jeder, der in irgendeinem Land der Erde Steuerzahler ist und/oder ein Bankkonto hat (also jeder), ein Datenobjekt bekommen. Oder zumindest jedes Unternehmen. So funktioniert das halt nicht, sorry. --Emu (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Estopedist1You are not answering my question. Granpar (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 What does the relatively high number of companies have to do with relevance? Granpar (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar please clarify the question directed to me Estopedist1 (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 I refer to the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
"Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: (...) to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. An item is acceptable if and only if it fulfills at least one of these two goals; that is, if it meets at least one of the three criteria below: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable (...) or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't clearly identifiable? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 isn't a material entity? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement?
Are you of the opinion that Q114557711 can't be described using serious and publicly available references? If that is the case, can you please explain what proves your statement? Granpar (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar item's creator task is to prove that Q114557711 can be described using serious and publicly available reference. Currently you haven't prove it. And the item is waiting to be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 I have provided a serious publicly available source. You still haven't answered my questions. Granpar (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No, you haven’t. You have provided a source you consider to be serious.
And as for your insistence on an answer, let me say it in German: Hier ist dir niemand zur Rechenschaft verpflichtet. --Emu (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu Why are you answering for @Estopedist1
I had mentioned https://www.vdb-waffen.de/de/mitglieder/waffen-fachgeschaefte/michael_beck_schiesssport-beckde.html?s=1&s_o=Ha%C3%9Fmersheim as source.
The Verband Deutscher Büchsenmacher und Waffenfachhändler is a Berufsverband. A Berufsverband is something like a professional association or professional body. Both the distributor and the professional association maintain a business relationship. Pursuant to §10 of the German Money Laundering Act, both parties are subject to general due diligence obligations and are required by §11 to identify themselves and to collect information for the purpose of identification. (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gwg_2017/). The deletion would be arbitrary according to the personal preferences of the administrators. Of course you are not forced to answer here. However, this suggests that it is not done without a reason. Granpar (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar I don’t think that you understand: I’m not answering questions for another user, I’m reprimanding you. Just as I did before when you called another user a troll because you didn’t like his understanding of notability. Again: You are on very thin ice and I urge you to think twice before you claim that other users are breaking the rules or that anybody who doesn’t comply with your wishes will be breaking the rules. --Emu (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
this RFD should probably closed with rationale procedural oppose. And bulk deletion request should be made including
Q114558240: no description
Q114558695: no description
@Granpar we consider that being a member of https://www.vdb-waffen.de is not enough. You have to find other serious sources Estopedist1 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Estopedist1 Why not just delete the three? We don’t need an RfD to delete. --Emu (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu no oppose. These two items are not old items (created October 2022) Estopedist1 (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu So far, none of you both have contradicted and therefore not refuted the following statements: Both the distributor and the professional association maintain a business relationship. Pursuant to §10 of the German Money Laundering Act, both parties are subject to general due diligence obligations and are required by §11 to identify themselves and to collect information for the purpose of identification. (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gwg_2017/) Granpar (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar That’s because I still don't understand how this provision in German law is even remotely relevant for Wikidata. But then again, I only hold a Bachelor degree in law and have been an administrator for just over a year, so what do I know. Maybe you could spell it out for me how this helps your case? --Emu (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu For example, the law requires counterparties to identify themselves prior to transactions. §11 (4) lists the information to be collected. The information given there must have been verified and is therefore not the equivalent of "user-generated content", as you wrote above. Granpar (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
So what you are trying to say is that the association checks if its members are legit? Okay, but for that argument to work, we’d have to consider every business in the registry (Firmenbuch) to be notable. We don’t do that. --Emu (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Emu It's clear to me that you don't do that. A German commercial register or an Austrian Firmenbuch as well fulfils publication, evidence, verification and protection functions. Both are serious and publicly available. Q114557711 refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable ... material entity. It is clearly notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. I supports wikidata's goal to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large. Granpar (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  Deleted along with Q114558240, Q114558695. Only one person want it to keep them in Wikidata Estopedist1 (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q111076723

Q111076723: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

We don't need items for every job title in every institution Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I think we need job titles for every institution. Here are the reasons why I believe this.
  1. Different institutions can have different policies for a job title with the same name. For example, some universities might have the prerequisite (P4967) that a full professor requires a bachelor's degree or a doctorate, some universities might not. A university in Japan might have the requirement that a professor speak Japanese and English, while a university in Argentina might have the requirement that a full professor speak Spanish and English. This knowledge (i.e. different policies and requirements) can be accurately added to Wikidata if we create such items. If we had a single item for all institutions, we might be adding incorrect information. For example, if we added the statement full professor (Q25339110)prerequisite (P4967)doctorate (Q849697) to full professor (Q25339110), this information might be true for some universities, but false for others.
  2. We are making the data in Wikidata more specific and granular. While it is true that this implies creating a big set of new items, at the same time, we are also making the data more accurate, because statements about specific job titles (as shown in the example of universities having different requirements) can be added to their corresponding Wikidata items. The job titles specific to some organizations can be linked to the generic item by using a Wikidata property (I used subclass of (P279) (rev), let me know if anyone have a better idea).
Sidenote: described at URL (P973) can be added to to point to the description of those job titles provided by the institutions (as I did in this statement).
-- Rdrg109 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you point to a discussion, showing consensus to have "job titles for every institution"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: No. I created that item motivated by the reasons I just described. -- Rdrg109 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Lexeme:L737577

invalid ID (L737577): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Lexeme:L737573

invalid ID (L737573): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Vandalism? Not a lexeme at least Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115156501

Q115156501: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. — Haseeb (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115154496

Q115154496: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. — Haseeb (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q112240139

Abiodun Folashade Tokunbo (Q112240139): Nigerian fashion designer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. For WD:N no. 1 and 3 this is obvious: no sitelinks, no structural need (the item isn’t linked from any other item). No. 2 could in principle be met, but as far as I can see, the item’s references amount to two news websites of unclear worthiness. (Don’t be fooled by the name “The Guardian” – it’s this Guardian.) --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:C89D:B1AC:1FCB:92D7 23:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the snide remark about the Nigerian The Guardian (Q7738431). What makes British The Guardian (Q11148) „better“ than Nigerian? --Gymnicus (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The remark wasn’t meant to be “snide”, but to highlight that the item does not have references from a daily “considered a newspaper of record in the UK” (en:The Guardian) with a 200-years-long history and a circulation of more than 100,000, but from a hardly 40-years-old one from Nigeria with “a national outlook in terms of reach and content” (en:The Guardian (Nigeria)) and unknown circulation. This has to be considered when assessing the notability of an item with such a newspaper as reference. That said, I wouldn’t consider everyone mentioned in The Guardian (Q11148) notable either, but there are certainly people who do. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:A4D5:89E:C3F1:2ADD 21:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not deleted per discussion --Emu (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115247713

Q115247713: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Per WD:N. Kacamata (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Mike Peel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114557711, Q114558240, Q114558695 deleted by Estopedist1

@Estopedist1 The reason given for deletion was that only one person wanted to keep these items. Only one person has also requestet the deletion. There is no consensus about the deletion. The number of people who want the deletion of this items is irrelevant. The item does meet notability requirements. The item is no vandalism. The item contained data. The were'nt blank. There is no common-sense reason for the deletion. Please restore these three items. Is there a complaints page here, such as https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Wikipedia:Administratoren-Probleme There was no discussion about Q114558240 and Q114558695.

See also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/11/17 Granpar (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Estopedist1 (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Granpar We don’t have a formal Löschprüfung here, this page certainly isn’t the right place. Please address Estopedist1 at their talk page or if you feel that you are uncomfortable with that option, open a thread at WD:AN. --Emu (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Q13059054

Q13059054: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Article deleted from bnwiki. — Haseeb (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/11/17&oldid=1773879123"