Shortcut: WD:RFD

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Items which do not meet Wikidata's notability policy can be deleted. 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 {{Q}} the first time you mention an item.

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.

If help is needed with the merging of items, see the instructions at Help:Merge.

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 July 25.






for permissions


for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports

a query


Requests for deletions


~8 open requests for deletions.

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}[edit]

Click here to purge if this list is out of date.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 | entity usage | logs)

Example Putmantime (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thats a biological molecule. MechQuester (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Putmantime: Why did you remove the statements from the item? And if it's an example, why is is linked from 2 other items? Mbch331 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Example Putmantime (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Putmantime: Why did you remove the statements from the item? And if it's an example, why is is linked from 2 other items? Mbch331 (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

The page gives the impression that it presents a official Wikidata guideline but it's author deletes attempts to include the template for proposed guidelines. The author also reverts edits of information where he clearly has a conflict of interest through his institutional ties. I don't think we should have pages like this that give the impression of presenting an official guideline, especially if it's author doesn't try to seek consensus (and additionally reverts edits where he has a COI). --ChristianKl (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a bad faith nomination, made after I removed the nominator's inappropriate {{Proposed}} tag from the page (which is not intended, as that template claims, to "become a policy or guideline"). Furthermore, I have already pointed out to the nominator that the page has no pretence of being a "policy", and does not bear a {{Policy}} template. I have also asked for evidence of a supposed conflict of interest and none has been forthcoming. The page is intended to be an easy guide for lay people who have never edited Wikipedia, much less Wikidata. The nominator makes no suggestions for its improvement, or indeed replacement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
It's ridiculus to claim that I made no suggestions for improvements. I suggested two improvements. I actually added two improvements through edits. You are the person who doesn't want to accept them and revert them. One of them despite the involved COI. ChristianKl (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Neither of your edits were improvements. Once merely continued the edit war started by another editor; the other falsely tagged the page as being something it is not: "proposed [to] become a policy or guideline". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is nothing but a plug for the practice of the author. Encouraging self-promotion is against the goals of the Wikimedia project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "This is nothing but a plug for the practice of the author." Any fool can see that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Who started that voice intro project then? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right, that was me. It's largely why I was given the honour of being made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and presented with an award by Jimmy Wales on the main stage at Wikimania 2014. It's why I was interviewed on prime-time National Pubic Radio (on their most-listened to show) in the USA, and why we got coverage, mentioning me, in press articles in about fifty countries. So to suggest or imply, after all that, that encouraging the people on whom we have items might to contribute valuable open content as part of that project (as well as pictures and data), without mentioning my involvement in it, is somehow my trying to get "self-promotion" is beyond deluded. But if we are going to prevent anyone who innovates from ever mentioning the things they've developed again, we're going to have to stop Magnus from telling anyone about the tools he develops, and as for all the great things done by Lydia Pintscher and her team... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
          • It's largely why I was given the honour of being made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, ...“. Thanks for this. --Succu (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
          • When Lydia Pintscher and her team communicates about their projects they generally don't engage in edit wars. I also don't remember Magnus engaging into edit wars to promote projects towards which he has ties. ChristianKl (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
            • Your argument is circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
              • What's circular about it? That I think having an edit war about a topic in which one has a COI is very bad? ChristianKl (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
                • Your claims of COI remain as false now as when you first made them, and then failed to provide evidence when challenged. Are you going to retract your other false claim on this page, as requested? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
                  • There's nothing false about it. If you publish a paper at a scientific journal and you received money from a company that has a related interest, COI policies require you to disclose the interest, even if you wouldn't have changed anything about your article if you wouldn't have had that institutional affiliation. That's how COI policies generally work. ChristianKl (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
                    • "If you publish a paper at a scientific journal" is a complete red herring. You are making and repeating demonstrably false claims. Desist; retract; and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This promotes COI editing, which is not what we want. --Rschen7754 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It does? Then please point out which part of which policy it conflicts with, and suggest improvements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but the COI editing is inherent. The purpose is to encourage people to contribute to their own Wikidata items. That is not what we want. --Rschen7754 19:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        • So, no policy, at all, against the kind of editing suggested. You're wrong about the purpose, by the way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep we were using {{Policy}} everywhere e.g. Wikidata:Notability
User:Pigsonthewing didn't use such template in the first place, addition of {{draft}} implies this is a draft of a policy. It wasn't even close after his edits
Minor wording should be fixed, no reason to remove page, even it was copied from other projects with little additions.
We never had many special agreements on Wikidata to represent them at "Wikidata item about you". Special version for Wikidata [different from other projects] is not that necessary. d1g (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Mr. Mabbett why did you titled this page as related to autobiography (Q4184) (as Wikipedia:Autobiography (Q4657322) and not to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (Q4663309)? --Succu (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep simple and useful help. I don't see it "promoting COI editing". Why "draft"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks strange to my: helped by Mr. Mabbett?! --Succu (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Pigsonthewing is employeed by ORCID. The page promotes ORCID and tells people to register ORCID addresses. Two people made edits to remove the promotion of the company that employs Pigsonthewing, and he reverted them despite his COI. ChristianKl (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • "Pigsonthewing is employeed [sic] by ORCID" No I am not. @ChristianKl: Please retract and apologise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • ORCID, Inc. (Q19861084) is not a company, but a non-profit organization. There is no conflict-of-interest with mentioning ORCID. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Whether or not it's a non-profit organization, is generally no criteria for whether something is a conflict of interest. ChristianKl (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
          • What conflict of interest? Andy has already stated he's not employed by ORCID. Where's the conflict of interest? You've been asked to retract your false statements. Why have you failed to do so? If you don't think that suggesting to possibly notable editors that they should register an unique identifier is a good idea, take it up on the talk page. Same for any of the other content that you don't like. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: Bad faith nom in a fit of pique because unhelpful suggestions are not being accepted. ORCID is a nonprofit, universal standard. This is like saying delete an article with an ISBN because the editor has affiliation with ISBN or something. Patently absurd. Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Ideally Wikidata:Living people should be revised so that it is in fact accessible to "lay people who have never edited Wikipedia, much less Wikidata" while having the force of established policy. Mahir256 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep dispute of the contents is not grounds of deletion of the whole page. this version does not advertize ORCID.--GZWDer (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If we delete any reference to specific ids we can keep it. We must keep only: "We like to have a record of unique identifiers that disambiguate you from other people with the same name." If it isn't accepted, I'm for deletion. I prefer serene environments and this complicate the situation without adding any value --ValterVB (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's fairly easy to read it as a "[Welcome to Wikidata] we hope you [..] stay and help us [by writing your autobiography]".
    Compare with Wikimedia in general:
    • "Il est déconseillé d'intervenir sur les articles concernant les sujets dans lesquels vous êtes personnellement impliqué"
    • "Para prevenir disputas prolongadas sobre el significado, precisión de los hechos o la neutralidad del material en temas en que usted está personalmente vinculado, es una buena idea esperar hasta que otros usuarios de Wikipedia hayan trabajado en él antes de crearlos o modificarlos."
    • "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy."

      --- Jura 08:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not to anyone literate. Your quote is about Wikipedia, not "Wikimedia in general". And this is not, as we keep being reminded, Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think the guidelines are notability are clear enough that this page does not promote self-promotion; in fact, the page is very clear in adding independent sources. I don't see why adding independent information by people should interfere with the general Wikimedia guidelines. If people feel someone is self-promoting to the level in violation of notability, the latter should be the reason to object, not this page, which merely encourages good practices. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Conflict-of-interest editing, which this promotes (creating an autobiography inherently entails a conflict of interest), is not something we should be advocating.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Conflict-of-interest is something relevant if there is something to gain (not every interest is a conflict-of-interest): I really don't see how someone who is marked as notable gains unreasonably by adding (sourced) facts. If an article should be created is already covered by Notability. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Egon Willighagen: There's a good chance that a page like this leads to some SEO people to think coming to Wikidata is welcome. This likely does lead to edits that we don't like and review work. ChristianKl (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
      • [ec] I asked above (and have done so previously) for a citation to a policy which supports this claim; none was forthcoming. Perhaps you can provide one? But even if it were true, the correct response would be to reword the nominated page to advise item subjects of how to correctly supply data in accordance with such a policy; not to delete the page, leaving them without advice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: Is your position that we shouldn't worry about conflicts of interest because we currently don't have a policy page that expresses an explicit policy against COIs? ChristianKl (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and move to the Help namespace. I've made some edits today that I believe improve the general neutrality of the page, but I think it does belong under "Help" as a guideline for users on what to do when there's an item about them. We do have millions of people in that situation. The name perhaps should be changed from "Autobiography" to something more wikidata-relevant, perhaps "Help:Item about me". ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


The relationship is already perfectly obvious:

So your statement "en:Wikipedia:Autobiography (=Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (Q4663309))" should be "en:Wikipedia:Autobiography (!=Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (Q4663309))". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

From en:Wikipedia:Autobiography: „Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged.“ In your adaption (or whatever it's meant to be) the word conflict is absent. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a Wikipedia policy. Is it a Wikidata policy? Citation (asking for the third time in this discussion) please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL, thats why we discuss not only about your ORCID recommendation. Your text encourages users to self-presentation. For me is omitting any hints to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (Q4663309) intentional. --Succu (talk)
  • Wrong venue This is a spiteful nomination, made simply because the nominator hasn't got his way in a content dispute. The only engagement on the relevant talk page has been: "There's a chance that a lay person who reads the page thinks that it represents accepted Wikidata policy. The template [{{Draft}}] informs them that it isn't." Editors really ought to be raising any genuine concerns on the talk page, not playing games like making frivolous nominations. --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eminently useful, sage, well written. Seems to offer only good advice. I think we should have pages like this to assistr interested newbies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Wildly inappropriate, a tone of voice and approach that is oft-putting and quite frankly rude. Does not engender collegiality -- and this information is found in better form in other places. I'm mystified the author thinks this is something that anyone but he thinks will be helpful. It made me want to run screaming AWAY. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrillLyle: "quite frankly rude" Which words, precisely? Does your view relate to your comments on the page's talk page, "Again, working on large dataset donations, etc. this constraint will make doing this very difficult"? Which "constraint" is that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrillLyle: Huh, rude? Are you looking at the same page I am? Please do give examples. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • It's the usage of "you" throughout the entry -- it's very jarring. Policy should be written in a much more neutral way. I like what ArthurPSmith did to address this but I still stand by the initial feedback and statement I made. Strip this entry of the inappropriate "you" references and it might be more useful. And not present such tonal issues. But I also question how one person, Andy Mabbett, can make such impactful assumptions and statements without consensus. This is not Wikidata according to Mabbett, even if that might be how he see it. Honestly I don't want Wikidata to turn into something similar to what I experience on Wikipedia, where editors dig into corners, can't have positive, collegial discussions, and don't respond to major concerns. BrillLyle (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
        • "Policy should be written in a much more neutral way" The page under discussion is not a policy. I doubt that anyone would agree with you that the use of a second-person-singular pronoun (examples: "We hope you will make use of Wikidata"; "If you are not satisfied..."; "if you think they are wrong, please raise the matter at Project chat"; "Wikidata can include a link to a photograph of you ") is "rude", non-neutral, or renders the page less useful. And please stop personalising content issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I am probably out voted here and this will go forward without further objection, but I also have the right to express concerns and provide feedback, don't I? So that is what I am doing. I am only one editor, here, so do what you will. I am positive Andy Mabbett will do what he wants and will disregard anything I say or any objections I make, because that is the consistent response he has provided to me in multiple instances in the past, accompanied by an unpleasant tone and aggressive approach. But I want it clearly stated that brute force of personality actions doesn't mean something is okay or right. I refuse to be afraid to speak up in the face of that. Just saying. Wikidata and more importantly Wikipedia is something I do for fun and this experience makes it the opposite of that. If I am going to contribute free digital labor and take the time to provide feedback, it would be really great not to have to debate and defend to the extent it is being asked here. I don't see others' statements being questioned and being told "oh yeah, prove it!" like mine was. BrillLyle (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I know nothing of previous discussions between people. I value it very highly that people feel free to speak up. Though, I have to see, from the root comment in this subthread it was not clear to me at all that the use of 'you' made you upset. Honestly, I have never heard that before (I learned something here), but also sounds like a very simple fix. I'm not a native English speaker, but replacing it with 'one' sound very feasible, and maybe a few eloquent speakers can find even better constructs. Sounds like a great way forward to me!--Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
          • The use of "one", especially in this context, would be awful - very overly formal, dated, and stilted. See, for example (emphasis added) [1]: "In modern English the use of one as a pronoun to mean 'anyone'... is generally restricted to formal contexts, outside which it is likely to be regarded as rather pompous or old-fashioned. In informal and spoken contexts the normal alternative is you". And once again, this is a content issue, not a good reason to delete an entire page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


We should also look at precedent. The word "you" (or ("yours") is used in English text (emphasis added):

  • twelve times in {{Welcome}} (Which opens "Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! ... you can go to any item" - emboldening in original)
  • in {{Autosign}} "place your signature... add your username")
  • in {{Uw-articles}} and others in that family of user-warning templates (e.g. "In case you didn't know... If you have any questions, you can...")
  • in the header of Wikidata:Project chat ("to see if your question has already been answered"; "the first time you mention an item")
  • eight times on the main page of this project (e.g. "Work with other volunteers on a subject that interests you"; "Learn how you can retrieve and use data from Wikidata.")
  • seven times in the notification under every edit box ("By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License... You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution..."; "Sign your comment...; "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...")
  • six times in the header of this page (e.g. "If the item you are nominating is quite empty... you can check...")
  • In the footer of every page on this site (" By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.")

Tell me again why we shouldn't use it on Wikidata:Autobiography? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

DEPRECATED (Q27949739)

Should use deprecated rank for this. Not meaningful in its current, circular, use as a "reason for deprecation" qualifier. --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to An:dy; Andy's edits 10:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 5 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


incorrect date of birth (Q21973878)

(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Used solely as a qualifier for reason for deprecation (P2241); we do not need an item for every type of incorrect property, a single "incorrect value" should suffice (though a more specific explanation is always desirable). --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Likewise incorrect date of death (Q27533685):

(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It like these items, it is a value given by a website but we have the proof it is not good, so we directly say "it is not good". Interesting when we found a such error on different websites. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment when the qualifier is used, we already know the rank and incorrectness of the statement. Merely adding "incorrect statement" wouldn't really help. If the users wants to provide a more detailed explanation, there isn't really any harm done by using these items.
    --- Jura 22:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty, as I moved no.wp link to Q1363768. Possibly english description could also be transferred. --Wikijens (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure they are the same? Q25438419 is a subclass of Q1363768. Mbch331 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wikijens: Could you answer my question above? Mbch331 (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice your question. It seems to me that the Norwegian article must at least be the same as Swedish, German and French. The Dutch article is perhaps somewhat wider in scope. I cannot say about Japanese or Slovakian. I am not sure why Q25438419 (no:fusjon) was a subclass of Q1363768 (en:fusion) in the first place. It seems from the history to have originally been a subclass of Q731112 (en:mergers and acquisitions), but this was changed by User:Sjoerddebruin. Maybe he can explain better. By the way, judging from the names (e.g. pl:Fuzja (ekonomia), da:Fusion (jura) and others), some of the articles in Q731112 might fit better in Q1363768. Probably a general sorting out of these elements is needed. At any rate, there seems to be no good reason to leave no:fusjon (finans) unconnected with the others, as this article is not "the odd one out". --Wikijens (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Constraint templates[edit]

Succeeded by constraint statement. (This is a controversial request, please reach a consensus before deleting)--GZWDer (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if these are deleted, edit history of property talk pages (i.e. property documentation) gets much harder to understand (at least for most people).
    --- Jura 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Time2wait.svg On hold The new system does not print SPARQL queries yet. I think it's useful to keep the patterns until a new way to print them is developed. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What if we use "archive" namespace to keep historic track? d1g (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request[edit]

  1. Q33079384 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q33079387 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q33079389 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q33079391 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q33079393 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q33079396 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. Q33079398 (delete | history | links | logs)
  8. Q33079401 (delete | history | links | logs)
  9. Q33079402 (delete | history | links | logs) (%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C%2C&show=1 all on TAB)

non notable soft redirect categories. GZWDer (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

and also:
  1. Q33079259 (delete | history | links | logs)
  2. Q33079262 (delete | history | links | logs)
  3. Q33079264 (delete | history | links | logs)
  4. Q33079280 (delete | history | links | logs)
  5. Q33079296 (delete | history | links | logs)
  6. Q33079297 (delete | history | links | logs)
  7. non notable soft redirect categories. (delete | history | links | logs) (notable soft redirect categories.%2C%2C%2C&show=1 all on TAB)

--GZWDer (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Most of the categories with soft redirects appear to be not empty. I deleted the empty ones and I think the other ones should stay. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The Wikipedia page is up for deletion as a hoax. Izno (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold till enwiki page is deleted. Mbch331 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request[edit]

Category redirect(Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria). These have only one sitelink. 本日晴天 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request[edit]

Category redirect(Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria). These have only one sitelink. 本日晴天 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request[edit]

Category redirects(Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion_criteria). These have only one sitelink. 本日晴天 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty element. --Dandelo (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


(delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)