Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/11/20

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

Bulk deletion request: @types/* npm packages

These npm packages are all automatically generated from a single GitHub repository and fail to meet WD:Notability. I created Definitely Typed (Q115003433) for the overall project and am proposing the creation of a new property npm scope which would let us state Definitely Typed (Q115003433)npm scopetypes. But I don't think we should have individual data items for every single @types/ npm package ... because there are 8829 of them and they all fail WD:Notability. While these packages are sometimes referenced via depends on software (P1547), I think simply stating depends on software (P1547)Definitely Typed (Q115003433) should suffice. Push-f (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Keplersj: creator. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In my knowledge of Javascript the types are optional only. Nothing actually depends on them, these packages are just compiler hints for development and does not affect the runtime of the actual code. Furthermore, if the project uses Javascript and not Typescript then they types packages do absolutely nothing. The @types packages are similar to linters in that regard, and I don't think any project depends on a linter as a required dependency, since consumers of that software don't need it installed. RPI2026F1 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

seems that too specific (out of scope of Wikidata), and clutter for Wikidata (almost 9000 such npm packages). Pinging some collaborators user:Nw520, user:LiberatorG, user:Waldyrious Estopedist1 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's worth having this information compiled somewhere, but Wikidata doesn't seem like the right place for it to be. Waldyrious (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 This kind of information, namely linter/transpiler type hints, is generally of too little use for notability on Wikidata and should be kept in a separate, specialized project. --Nw520 (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

npmjs.org is already tracking which packages depend on which packages, so I see little need for tracking that in a separate specialized project. --Push-f (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes there are many different kind of dependencies: runtime dependencies, build dependencies and development dependencies. While depends on software (P1547) is probably mostly used for runtime dependencies, it's not explicitly defined for that scope, it's description is unfortunately very vague. Note that type definitions can very much be build-time dependencies for software written in TypeScript. --Push-f (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted: all deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114592613

Q114592613: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q10498940

fringe theatre group (Q10498940): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The above is already present here: Q1464930 --Risvang (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep This refers to a group of people who do theater of that genre. Both should stay. It is structural. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted per -wd-Ryan. --Emu (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q112272529

Notable? Trade (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted because of Commons category. Deleted unsourced statements and descriptions. CC @মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন: --Emu (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115188395

Q115188395: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

17 y/o fake producer, promotional stuff Rockpeterson (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114243338

Q114243338: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 23:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Q113993997

Q113993997: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lack of notability, spam Stang^★ 12:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q100791778

Derrick Ford (Q100791778): college basketball player (2005–2006) Milwaukee: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not link to any other projects, and isn't linked to internally. It might fulfill point 2 of WD:N, but I'm not entirely sure! --EdoAug (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep. WD:N#2 is easily satisfied. He's in at least 3 serious public databases (see also ESPN). Linking to other projects is immaterial: Wikidata is not meant exclusively for Wikipedia or Wikimedia, but rather can serve as a data source for external projects and analyses. -Animalparty (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You're probably right! Is there any way I can pull back a request? EdoAug (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted request withdrawn --Emu (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115210887

Q115210887: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion Madamebiblio (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q108653233

Q108653233: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Doesn't appear to be notable --Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114131079

Q114131079: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Haseeb (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115221705

Q115221705: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Mistakenly made - should be a property Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115222568

Q115222568: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No strong indication of notability Bovlb (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115115539

Q115115539: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No strong indication of notability Bovlb (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q100395009

Q100395009: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

As far as I can tell this was erroneously created from the Spanish Wikipedia page es:Kalohipus bretunensis, thanks to the "que" suffix. I believe it's supposed to be "Allosauridae" but I could be mistaken Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115200683

Q115200683: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No indication of notability. Created by one IP, blanked by another. Bovlb (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114316392

Q114316392: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No strong indication of notability Bovlb (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q107388282

Q107388282: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Only sitelink is a redirection to an actual article Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q621070

Q621070: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Disambig page without any sitelink (all moved to Q4781092) Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ameisenigel (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q23577944

Binas (2nd edition) (Q23577944): 2nd edition of the Dutch book Binas: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable at all. Binas is currently at edition 7 and it is not a book you read for fun: it is an educational book for Dutch students in secondary school. It includes constants, formulas, the periodic table, etc. --ItzLarz (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, Q4835696 already exists, this is the same book, but linked to the right pages. -ItzLarz (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 9 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep We list all editions of books. The have different editors and different page lengths and have different years of publication. BINAS (Q4835696) is for the first edition. --RAN (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Not deleted per RAN. --Emu (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115125122

We Are Church (Q115125122): reformist organization within the Roman Catholic Church: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No longer needed, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/8._November_2022#Zusatzschutz_%28bleibt%29 I am a sysop on the German WIkipedia, and decided that RfD. The items were linked wrongly before, now fully subsumed into Q567554. --Minderbinder (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Minderbinder Sehe ich das richtig, dass man durchaus darüber nachdenken kann, eigene Datenobjekte für die verschiedenen nationalen Organisationen anlegen könnte (wenn man denn möchte), aber der Artikel vor der Weiterleitung selbst nicht ganz genau weiß, was genau er beschreibt, wodurch Q115125122 am ehesten als Dublette von Q567554 zu betrachten ist? Dann würde ich eher mergen als löschen. Aber ganz klar ist mir die Sache nicht. --Emu (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Mergen ist auch OK, danke. Ich wollte hauptsächlich die Interwiki-Links fixen. —Minderbinder (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q109816175

Q109816175: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. — Haseeb (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115253828

Q115253828: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. self promotion Lectrician1 (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115253609

Q115253609: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Lectrician1 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q94435542

Q94435542: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There is nothing like that around the place and the database item was deleted Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q108760745

Q108760745: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability and self-promotional. — Haseeb (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q65278615

Chiryawala (Q65278615): village in Pakistan: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

A duplicate of Chiryawala (Q5102031) --BarleyButt (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q113587791

Q113587791: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable Trade (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q111525640

Q111525640: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No notability --2407:7000:88A4:9500:80EE:1B5B:A907:1A4D 04:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115256840

Q115256840: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notablity Rockpeterson (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115268072

Q115268072: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test Madamebiblio (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Martin Urbanec (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115088791

Q115088791: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Test Madamebiblio (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q83972868

Q83972868: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused item. Not described well enough to determine why it was created or how it is different from unknown (Q24238356) Senator2029 04:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

Q2504437 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504440 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504443 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504445 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504449 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504452 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504454 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504458 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504461 (delete | history | links | logs)
Q2504463 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Only link was deleted from enwiki and these do not fulfill a structural need. Rs chen 7754 06:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted --Emu (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115102102

Mark Lindner (Q115102102): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This page has been created to avoid confusion with another Mark Lindner, but Portulanus asked me to delete it. Please, see his comment there. I see no objection for deleting that page. --Genium . 08:02, Nov 19, 2022 (UTC+01:00)

Not deleted @Genium, Portulanus: Sorry but LCCN indicates notability. Yes, I read the objection to this item, but it doesn’t really fly. --Emu (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115284341

Q115284341: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by mistake Sabelöga (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Emu (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115284340

Henry Blaneforde (Q115284340): 14th-century English chronicler: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of Q18528348 Loenstock (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q55744184

Physician (Q55744184): Wikimedia perment page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blank entry --Artrayme (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not deleted @Artrayme: Not only isn’t it “blank”, the item even has two sitelinks. --Emu (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Q67772215

Q67772215: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non existing item, there isn’t any castle at those coordinates and without name it’s impossible to guess what castle the author did meant. --Runi Gerardsen (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115252713

Q115252713: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Faisal ^talk 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115287187

Q115287187: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115298383

Q115298383: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Sorry, I created this item but I realized (trying to add the family name) that the page Mali B. Malipatil (Q21340433) exists. Probably that the "Mallik B. Malipatil" is only on error on the Wiley page. To be delete for sure. Thank you so much. --Givet (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q99338845

Q99338845: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unused/unlinked --Vituzzu (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q18912610

Q18912610: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted at enWS — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115300784

Q115300784: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Croswiki spam. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Q13201686

museum (Q13201686): institution that holds artifacts and other objects of scientific, artistic, cultural, historical, or other importance: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty item Rhadamante (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q16713067

Q16713067: Wikimedia disambiguation page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty Yuriy Kvach (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Emu, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q21187599

Q21187599: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Unrelated, missing details Frlgin (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Fralambert (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q115303195

Valea Largă railway station (Q115303195): railway station in Romania: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Created by mistake. Duplicate of Q60810203 --Nenea hartia (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Gymnicus, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Q114998813

Q114998813: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable Trivialist (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This meets the criteria "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." Wikidata:Notability U+1F360 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It exists in 6 other databases, how could it not be notable? U+1F360 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Also there are a ton of these already. Are we going to delete all of them?

Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Q38076. I think it's totally fine if Wikidata is the sum of all (named?) places. U+1F360 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is even a reverse reference to this item now. U+1F360 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@U+1F360: please see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2022/11/12#Bulk_deletion_request_“bank_branch_of_Volksbank_Neckartal”. This RFD can be closed as procedural oppose, and bulk deletion request should be made for all pop-upped McDonalds which haven't covered by serious sources--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The item is covered by serious sources because it is included in other databases of which we have properties for. Or are we saying that we have properties for databases which are not serious sources? If that is the case, shouldn't the properties be deleted as well? U+1F360 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Not all external links confer notability. This is especially true for user-generated content or for sources that indiscriminately (have to) publish information such as some public registries. But no, those properties shouldn’t be deleted. --Emu (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we make a list of properties that confer notability? That would be really useful as a contributor. U+1F360 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

instance of (P31)Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) for the property is a good rule of thumb. --Emu (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying though. Uber Eats store ID (P10683) probably does confer notability since a user cannot create or even modify a record, but OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) probably does not. If we could come to a consensus on this that would be useful because it's completely subjective right now. U+1F360 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m no expert but I would suspect that pretty much every venue that is willing to accept Uber’s terms will receive such a ID. OpenStreetMap is complicated – I was hesitant at first, too, but they are a project with a stringent code of ethics and procedures that ensure quality. That’s why we mostly accept OpenStreetMap data as an indication (that can be disproved) of notability. --Emu (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: I su ppose what we are saying underneath that, is that a ghost kitchen (Q65049435) is not notable, but a McDonald’s (Q38076) location is? Since the latter has a physical location in both OpenStreetMap way ID (P10689) and Who's on First ID (P6766)? This seems rather subjective, but ok. U+1F360 (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s not what I’m saying. --Emu (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why we are even having this conversation? There are tons of items on Wikidata that don't even represent "real" (in the sense of "physical" things), but we'd rather have a discussion about something that is real. Who cares if Wikidata contains every venue that exists and has ever existed? That seems valuable? (assuming we have contributors willing to maintin those items) What makes Meadow Woods station (Q55316697) notable and Q114998813 not? The latter has way more visitors per day than the former. It seems like someone feels like it isn't notable and therefore it is not. I don't think that's a good standard. If we can't have an objective measure of what is or isn't notable, I would much rather aire on the side of notability. I realize that is subjective. U+1F360 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep – Under the rules in place, @U+1F360: has persuasively presented sufficiet These items do meet the criteria for inclusion. Granted, those critera are broadly written, but it is because their intent was err on the side of inclusion. Wikidata has a process for recognizing important databases and sources by granting them a Property P number. To hunt andpeck through individual items in that source is tedious and unleoductive. The problem isn't a McDonald's location, it is the inherent flimsy vetting process caused by too much work, too few volunteers, and this burdensome discussion method of to reach consensus. Senator2029 04:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we have too much work and too few volunteer. That’s the reason why we should be rather strict when it comes to notability. Note that I’m not against those items per se (although I doubt their notability) but it’s pretty clear that nobody will care to keep those items up to date, resulting in an even higher burden for volunteers. --Emu (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree with user:Emu. Currently, three users are voting delete and two users keep. I notified WD:AN to get more input Estopedist1 (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If everyone stewarded the venues in their own community, this wouldn't be a problem. It also sounds like we need to do more work to automate the maintanance of items like this. The only concern here that I am gathering is FUD over having too many items? U+1F360 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
See, but that’s the problem, you are trying to create work for others: According to you, everybody should be interested in the venues in their own community. Somebody should operate some sort of bot. That may or may not be a worthwhile cause but I don’t see the workforce and dedication to this at the moment or any time soon – at least not on Wikidata, it’s probably very different elsewhere. As to your FUD allegation: Nobody in their right mind will volunteer here on Wikidata if they are afraid of many items. But the notability guidelines help us to focus on items that have a a good chance that they will be reused or at least kept in order. --Emu (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This feels like an argument based on scarcity rather than abundance. What happens when we have 10 times the number of volunteers we do now? That may seem like wishful thinking, but I honestly think that the only thing that is stopping people from contributing is the friction we create for ourselves by dragging contribitors into discussions about notability. U+1F360 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
people willing to invest time in wikidata are scarce and not because of our notability policy. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm done. U+1F360 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Multichill (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia developers

Non-notable data object to Wikimedia Foundation team. It only serves to make people norable who aren't. Gymnicus (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a continuation of Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Wikimedia_developers.

Delete from me but no need to go over this discussion once again. --Emu (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Keep The purpose of these items being created is so that they can eventually be used in sidebar template and below on the page of mediawiki:Wikimedia_Search_Platform which is a notable page. Thus, it fills a structural need. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment They are also now parts of their teams' items, like in Q114602126. More structural use. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete This is yet another try to force through vanity items for everybody remotely connected to Wikimedia or their projects. This issue has been discussed quite a lot and the argument is always that it’s kinda sorta nice for people to enjoy their own items or there is some highly theoretical benefit because of some infobox that’s better served otherwise. However: There is no independent, outside coverage, period. Q114602126 should be deleted, too. --Emu (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

But I guess it’s pointless to discuss this anyway. Almost all admins will be hesitant to delete those items and then there will be some out-of-policy keep decision by one of the usual suspects. There is no consensus for vanity items like this but by salami tactics, they get to stay anyway. --Emu (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Emu: I created those items because they are employees of an organization that are notable and that documented them in a serious and publicly available reference. I'd have also created items for employees that belong to notable organizations and that were documented online in the official website of the organizations they are working on. Because we are using serious and publicly available reference to describe clearly identifiable entities, this conforms to rule no. 2 of Wikidata:Notability.

I'm aware that some users create Wikidata items for non-notable organizations (start-ups, own businesses, small companies, etc.) for mere advertising, that's why I mentioned "notable organizations". For these type of companies, I wouldn't create Wikidata items for their employees because even if they have an official website, the organization is not notable.

-- Rdrg109 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

But employees of a notable organization aren’t notable per se, especially not if they are low-level or mid-level. And the references aren’t serious in a WD:N sense, they are self-published information on a wiki. We would never even consider similar items for other projects. --Emu (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Delete per user:Emu Estopedist1 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

These are not notable just because they are employees, they're notable because they have multiple structural uses for Wikimedia projects. Same goes for the teams working on the projects. I'd say this would be the case for non-Wikimedia organizations as well, assuming there is similar structural use. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m intrigued. Which “multiple structural uses for Wikimedia projects“ are there at the moment? If it’s infoboxes, well, they are better served by just plain ol’ text. --Emu (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and Wikidata also have always documented the Wikimedia Movement. All named employees of the Wikimedia Foundation merit Wikidata items for Wikidata:Notability #3 - "structural need". We need to have all the staff names because those names appear so commonly in relation to other projects we document. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Bluerasberry. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry, wd-Ryan: So participation in the Wikimedia movement is notable? What a load of crap. Wikimedia spam is spam, just like any other spam. And the data objects I am proposing to delete here are clearly spam. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"load of crap" is not a productive argument

Keep I deserve another keep vote on this because Gymnicus is being uncivil in response to my comment. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Do I get one too..? 😅 -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it’s hard to deny their basic premise, don’t you think? --Emu (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

They're correct, but "participation = notability" isn't what's being argued here. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t it? Then we have a very different comprehension of this discussion. --Emu (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Where was I uncivil? I was only telling the truth by its name. Wikimedia spam is spam, just like any other spam, and so is Wikimedia promotion also promotion. Neither is desired here on Wikidata. If the persons described by the data objects I propose for deletion were notable, then they could contain a GND ID (P227), a Library of Congress authority ID (P244) or other notable identifiers or other reputable sources. But they don't have one, they only have a Wikimedia username (P4174) or maximal also a Twitter (X) username (P2002) or LinkedIn personal profile ID (P6634) which doesn't create notability. So you can compare these workers just like assembly line workers at BMW or other companies.

In principle, it doesn't matter either, because it makes no difference whether you vote twice with the template {{Vote keep}} or just once. The vote is not binding for the administrators. At most, they represent a recommendation for action, from which you can of course deviate, because it is only a recommendation. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I put a diagram there to help guide the discussion.

I agree with you about the company spam, but my argument is that Wikimedia projects and people get special privileges throughout the Wikimedia platform. Wikimedia projects are exceptional because of the long history of including meta-information in all Wikimedia projects. I feel that everyone should reasonably expect that many users in the future will spontaneously get the idea to further use Wikidata to document more Wikimedia topics. I am skeptical of any plans which deny or fail to recognize our established culture of giving preference to Wikimedia content. There is some difference here.

I like the idea of items for all Wikimedia employees, tied to their projects, and tied to budgets, tools, and other outcomes. Wikidata seems like a great place for tracking Wikimedia Movement money, engagement, publications, and the rest. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

“get special privileges throughout the Wikimedia platform” is the definition of corruption. It’s like writing an encyclopedia of famous people as determined by a rigorous guideline but then also including your husband, your coworkers (and maybe the chap who sells you baloney for lunch) because you feel that their contributions is oh-so-valuable to your endeavour of writing said encyclopedia. You can do it but you won’t be taken seriously.

Anyway, such a “long history” doesn’t even exist. Wikimedians don’t get articles on serious Wikipedia editions unless they meet the notability criteria of those projects. Before you say it: Commons is different, yes. -Emu (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are 1000s of Wikimedia meta-projects documented in English Wikipedia, which is evidence of special privileges. I know there are some from 2006; probably they start earlier. en:Category:Wikipedia meetups by country. Many of these projects could be assigned a value of US$100s. The information is in Wikipedia, despite not being a part of Wikipedia the encyclopedia. Q114602126 is a effort of at least US$20 million so is far beyond the scale of what is typical to document.

This is not about documenting endless random features - there are a set of people and projects which we document for the purpose of tracking the progress and biases in Wikimedia development itself. I think documenting staff and projects increases transparency and prevents corruption. This is not for staff benefit. No corporation does this because this kind of transparency as a disaster from the perspective of top-down management. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

evidence of special privileges: You do realize that those are in the Wikipedia: namespace? What’s next, do you propose that everybody with a user page on any Wikimedia project is notable because there is evidence of special privilege because we keep those pages around?
20M $: How is that relevant? I mean, it’s not a lot of money in tech, the puny Austrian Army just spent 15M € on some SAP project that went nowhere. And if it were relevant, why should people associated with that be notable?
document for the purpose of tracking the progress and biases in Wikimedia development itself: And how would you do that? There is nothing of the sort to be seen at the moment.
documenting staff and projects increases transparency and prevents corruption: Of course it does. How does this relate to Wikidata items about the staff? Put it into a project space page or upload a report on Commons.
This is not for staff benefit: Maybe. So? Vanity items for a heavily criticized mid-tier foundation might be even worse.
No corporation does this because this kind of transparency as a disaster from the perspective of top-down management: I’m sorry, what?

Again: Special treatment for people and things close to our hearts, waiving any necessity for proper outside coverage, is a disaster for Wikidata’s credibility. Your arguments seem to just strengthen this assessment. But fear not: Those items will probably stay anyway. --Emu (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I have never used the wording “load of crap” as an argument. It was just a designation, as I find your argument that you made clear again in this comment. My argument came later. Wikimedia spam is nothing else than spam from others. Wikimedia does not create a privilege. Unfortunately, many think so. But why does someone who works at Wikimedia have a privilege and someone who works or is involved in cancer relief, in the prevention of racism or in the fight against global warming does not have a privilege? If you do that, don't be surprised that others want to dump their spam here too, because the Wikimedia Foundation does exactly the same thing. But the Wikimedia Foundation is okay and others are not, so the other users get banned. Meanwhile, the Wikimedia spammers are allowed to go on and on. This is an indictment for Wikidata and Wikimedia. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep for now, Per WD:N all the listed entities meet currently meet the both requirements, to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large and one the sub sections namely 3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.. Should this change in the future such as the entity that uses them for structural purposes is deleted (I don't currently see it proposed for deletion anywhere) or community consensus is built that items for structural needs have notability in their own standing (which seems to be a lot of the arguments here) and then the policy is updated then they can be reproposed for deletion. P858snake (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@P858snake: A statement with the property has part(s) (P527) but does not generate any notability under point 3. Namely otherwise I could also make all Instagram, Facebook and other accounts from notable websites relevant because they are part of these websites. In addition, I also suggested the data object Q114602126 for deletion, since the team is also irrelevant and, as you can see here, should only serve to make the Wikimedia users relevant. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Bluerasberry.-- H^akan·IST 08:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Bluerasberry. It's no different from documenting WMF affairs on Commons, say. --Andreas JN 466 17:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jayen466: Wrong, it's different. While Commons has no notability criteria, here in Wikidata we do have notability criteria, which should be bypassed here. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, to sum up, the reasons why we should keep those items according to various users:

Because they can be used in an infobox. True, but so can plain text.
Because of multiple structural uses for Wikimedia projects and because we need to have all the staff names because those names appear so commonly in relation to other projects we document. No evidence of this has been brought forward.
Because they are linked from Q114602126 True, but that leaves the question why this item should be notable.
Because of an alleged established culture of giving preference to Wikimedia content There is no indication that this has ever been true beyond meta pages.
Because all named employees of the Wikimedia Foundation merit Wikidata items for structural need. That’s an assertion, not a reason.
Because some feel that everyone should reasonably expect that many users in the future will spontaneously get the idea to further use Wikidata to document more Wikimedia topics. There is no indication that this navel gazing is of interest to the general public at all.

Beyond stretching WD:N #3 beyond its borders and a lot of “but wouldn’t it be nice“, I still see no reason why we shouldn’t delete those items. --Emu (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I set up Wikidata:WikiProject Wikimedia Foundation A lot of Wikimedia Foundation content already passes WD:N so that WikiProject is a place to sort that. It can also be a place index conversations like this one whenever they occur. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Request to Wikimedia Foundation for...
- staff, team, and product data - mw:Topic:X5zsmeazr3s3tr56
- grants data - meta:Talk:Grantmaking/Reports/2020-2021

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Delete: Extreme navel-gazing vanity. The left earlobe of William Shakespeare (Q692), and/or my own genitalia, could conceivably have some hypothetical use in making some incredibly convoluted statements more valuable, or auto-filling an infobox dedicated to my own genitalia. Unless we want to allow EVERY SINGLE person with a Wikimedia account (including me, Animalparty, the most important Wikimedian in my own circles), we should not allow these. Note: this passes no judgement on the people described by the items: I don't know them and I'm sure they are quite upstanding persons. -Animalparty (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

These items are as notable as Movement Strategy and Governance (Q110856861), Language committee (Q54327997) and Wikimedia Search Platform team (Q110932782)? Why not simply create a page on MediaWiki and link to it? --Midleading (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

per discussion it is obvious that there is no consensus to delete them. We probably can close this CFD, further discussions are encouraged but not in RFD section. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted for all by Multichill. (For bot) Fralambert (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What part of this discussion implied consensus...? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)