Wikidata:Requests for deletions

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: WD:RFD

Please nominate items for deletions on this page under the "Requests" section below. If it is obvious vandalism, just add the page here (gadget available), or ping an administrator to delete it. Contact can also be made with an administrator in #wikidata connect.
Note: If the item you are nominating is quite empty (with a few interwikis), you can check if the item is a duplicate using Special:ItemDisambiguation.

Please do not request the deletion of merged items. Per this request for comment, merged items should now be redirected.

Before deleting items, check to ensure that they are not in use. This can be easily done with the "links" link below the header of each request.

Do not try to pre-emptively delete an item because its page is up for deletion on a Wikimedia project. The link will be removed by bots and reported here in the future if a deletion takes place.

Please use Wikidata:Properties for deletion if you want to nominate a property for deletion.

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard instead for undeletion requests.

Add a new request

On this page, old requests are archived, if they are marked with {{Deleted}}. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at March 30.


Requests for deletions


~7 open requests for deletions. (live)

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}[edit]

None at the moment

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.


Please add a new request at the bottom of this section, using {{subst:Rfd|1=PAGENAME|2=REASON FOR DELETION}}.


(delete | history | links | logs | discussion)

Hello, this seems to be a kind of 'meta item' about types of music albums. There are 4 items for specific types (for example, live album (Q209939)) linked to this item. They have the claim that they are an 'instance of' (instance of (P31)) this item. However all four have also the claim that they are a subclass (subclass of (P279)) of the more general item album (Q482994). Hence the following two conclusions:

  • This item is superfluous, because its goal is already achieved in another way.
  • The item enlarges the confusion between instance- and subclass relationships. That the concept 'live album' is a kind of music album can much better be described by making it a subclass of music album (a direct relationship) that indirectly by using this intermediate item. Also 'live album' is itself a class so it is against the principles of P31 and P279 that is would be an 'instance of' anything.

Two months ago I asked about the use of this item on its talk page, but no-one responded. Instead of removing this item, redirecting it to album (Q482994) would perhaps also be okay. But I think it should not be used in any claims. Bever (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this item still in use? -- BeneBot* (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There are 4 items using this item as a target for P31, as I said. I thought perhaps you would like to see that. If necessary, I will remove those claims. Bever (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the P31 claims from the following items:

So now the item is not 'in use' any-more. Bever (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I created the item, I should have been noticed. @bever: For an explanation about this kind of items, see Help:Classification. Metaclasses can be useful, not every subclass can actually be in the range of a property for example. TomT0m (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bever: And no, the item can definitely not be merged into album, this would really break the item/class relationship. And please, don't delete the claim while the discussion in unfinished. TomT0m (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bever: See also metaclass (Q19478619) (View with Reasonator) for an english wikipedia article about the metaclass concept in the semantic web. TomT0m (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello TomT0m, sorry for not notifying you. As no-one responded to my question at the item's talk page, I got the impression that nobody cared about it and thought "let's be bold".
I can see that in a case like ship class (Q559026), a well known phenomena, a two-fold relationship from the individual ship classes to both 'ship' and 'ship class', is necessary. But I wonder to which extent 'type of music album' will be used, as there are no sitelinks for the item. Everything which can be told about classification of music albums, is already told in the articles at album (Q482994). Bever (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bever: I have some doubts about statements on that item :)
< album > subclass of (P279) miga < q2031291 >
seems not really to make sense to me for example, this imply that every album is released if I understand well. Anyway some of the subclasses of album, for example Mickael Jackson album or whatever, are subclasses of album conceptually, may appear in Wikidata for some reason (it is an open world) and may break your assumption. In that view an item like album type make sense because it allows this to happen without problem, and is just another way to say the same things that are present in the article. It's instances are the main types of album used in the recording industry.
PS: I guess someone you don't care about would need some information as well :) TomT0m (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

This item seems like a bad idea for two reasons:

  1. The gender of names depends on the fads of the day. For example, Ashley used to be an exclusively male name and is now an exclusively female name. Sometimes these changes can take place in a matter of a few years, for example, in the 70s, Ryan was exclusively a male name. Then in the 80s there was a surge of women named Ryan.
  2. The gender of names depends on the culture and language. For example, Camille is a male name in French and a female name in English.

I don't think we have enough manpower to keep up with problem #1 and I don't think we have enough expertise to keep track of problem #2. In most cases, the use of this item will simply be one person's opinion at one point in time, not objective long-lasting metadata.. --Kaldari (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this item still in use? -- BeneBot* (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I would like to get other people's opinion before removing it. If there's a better place to discuss this (that doesn't require removing all the uses first), please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You know you're talking to a bot? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't been used on any of the names you mention. What problem are you trying to create? --- Jura 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but as soon as John becomes a popular name for women, we're going to be in trouble. Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Future tense? So, currently, we are trying to find a solution for a non-existing problem? --- Jura 07:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's also the current problem of deciding how this item would actually be applied. Are we supposed to take into account all language usage or only the usage in the person's native language? Should it be based on the name usage at the time of the person's birth or current name usage? Does it matter that it probably won't be verifiable? How are borderline cases decided, like women named Chris? Kaldari (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Combined different things: A redirect on the rowiki to a category about Poetry by nationality with an item on the cywiki Barddoniaeth yn ôl iaith. This is clearly by language, as there is another category on the cywiki, Barddoniaeth yn ôl gwlad, refering to countries (i.e. nationality), and the article iaith is listed in language (Q315). - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 08:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC). --- cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 08:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and it's empty now... - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 15:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Non-notable per WD:N. —Wylve (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this item still in use? -- BeneBot* (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
He is a editor (P98) for Heaven Sent Gaming (Q17275459), but does that make someone nobable? - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 08:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
According to the current WD:N provisions, it does make it notable per criterion 1. However I must point out that Heaven Sent Gaming (Q17275459) is itself likely to be non-notable. A Google search reveals nothing for this company except for wiki sites and social media sites. The jawp and nvwp articles are created by a series of sockpuppet accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smile Lee/Archive), which turn out to be owned by the owner of the company. The question is whether these are grounds for deleting the items of the company and its employees. —Wylve (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Meta-item in basically the wrong namespace. This should be able to be captured by a constraint on any number of items. --Izno (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this item still in use? -- BeneBot* (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Iznogood to remove this before actually discussing it. Let's restore it first.
    "Should" is correct, but we haven't seen a stable alternate solution yet. --- Jura 07:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

This is a meta data item which should be captured in some other fashion.. --Izno (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this item still in use? -- BeneBot* (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Merged into Q18044779 Sol1 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Merged into Q1433108 Sol1 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | logs)

Article referred to was deleted Sol1 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)