Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/03/07

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

Q12984851

Q12984851: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Removed page from tawiki. Not enough content. --Nan (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28909847

Q28909847: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Apparent test/vandalism item Andrei Stroe (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28910544

Q28910544: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Vandalism Andrei Stroe (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q12987072

Q12987072: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Removed page from tamil wikipedia. Not enough content in the page, based on tawiki rules. --Nan (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q18168521

Q18168521: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Only entry has just been deleted from the itwiki --- cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28910631

J. S. La Fontaine (Q28910631): British anthropologist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Accidentally created duplicate of Q20897552 --PamD (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Merged --Q.Zanden questions? 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion: Item created by @Andikapanji: and no more notable

• Only istanza di (P31)and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• Without usage using "Wikis subscribed to this entity"
• Checked 3 March from 18:32 to 20:39 CET

1. Q24375333 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q24829886 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy ValterVB (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Apo Duat (Q24829886) looks like it is probably the same thing as Apo Duat (Q4780046) and so should be merged instead of deleted. Q24375333 says it is a village called Luhutban in Indonesian, and its Indonesian description says "desa di Maluku"–so I presume it is talking about a village called Luhutban in the Maluku Islands, Indonesia. I find it very plausible there is such a village in Indonesia although I cannot find any online sources about it. Given Indonesia is a developing country, we should expect many small Indonesian villages to not be mentioned on the Internet, whereas an equally small or smaller village in a developed country will have numerous Internet references – places of human settlement such as towns and villages should be presumed notable regardless of whether they are in wealthier or poorer countries. And I repeat my objection to thoughtless mass deletion nominations without thoughtful consideration of each individual item before proposing its deletion.SJK (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by Lymantria (talk • contribs • logs) First one redirected, village Luhutban is unsourced and unspecified - does not meet notability criteria. --14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28910312

Q28910312: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Sandboxing?

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28910302

Q28910302: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Sandboxing? --Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by HakanIST (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion: Item created by @Magnus Manske: and no more notable

• Only istanza di (P31)and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• Without usage using "Wikis subscribed to this entity"
• Checked 3 March from 18:32 to 20:39 CET

1. Q26720443 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q26720454 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q26720710 (delete | history | links | logs)
4. Q26720711 (delete | history | links | logs)
5. Q20806540 (delete | history | links | logs)
6. Q20815306 (delete | history | links | logs)
7. Q22827583 (delete | history | links | logs)
8. Q26238579 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy ValterVB (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I added statements to the first 4 items, it's about bank in Niger. They are notable. Tubezlob (🙋) 15:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that Q26720443, Q26720710 and Q26720711 are notable? --ValterVB (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Tubezlob. Keep Q26720443, Q26720454, Q26720710 and Q26720711. My rational is they comply with criteria "3" of Wikidata:Notability (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): they are notable banks with some history which can be described through serious books and journals (it's a pity several journals on African issues are not view-available in Google books) and serious webpages. I've added some data, too. My guess is anyone familiarized with banking and Niger would be perfectly able to enhance their data. I do not support creating items this way, without statements and sources, but once we have a notable (potentially or not) item I think its deletion is not worth it. Strakhov (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see the relevance. They are banks like thousands of other banks in the world. Not all banks can stand on Wikidata. For me are not notable. --ValterVB (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why can't all banks stand on Wikidata? They are clearly identifiable entities and you can't run a bank without tons of written sources about your existence. ChristianKl (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No they can not, as they can not be there all the fast food in the world or all the people, or all the bed & breackfast. --ValterVB (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

...or all the streets in the Netherlands? Time for you to re-read the notability policy, I suggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An item with only P31=bank can be totally invented and I don't is accettable. --ValterVB (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Keep for banks, per @Strakhov's statement. Yarl ✉️️  22:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think there is a risk here of bias against poorer countries, even if unintentional. In a wealthy country, every bank will have a website and for most banks there would be numerous online media references to them, so notability will be easy to establish. By contrast, in many poorer countries, banks might not have websites; newspapers that talk about them might not have websites or not put their media online; etc. So, with this proposal to delete African banks, I am worried of systemic bias, that a European bank in a similar situation would not be deleted because of the greater Internet penetration not because of inherent notability. Therefore,  Keep. SJK (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done The banks have become sufficiently sourced. Other items deleted/redirected. Lymantria (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion: Item created by @Danneks: and no more notable

• Only istanza di (P31)and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• Without usage using "Wikis subscribed to this entity"
• Checked 3 March from 18:32 to 20:39 CET

1. Q18206223 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q21156689 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q21178395 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy ValterVB (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Remain only the first to be check --ValterVB (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Checked first one. Lymantria (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Lymantria (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q8244730

Batasio havmolleri (Q8244730): species of fish: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item was created for Batasio havmolleri in Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia, a synonym of Batasio fluviatilis. Both pages in ES and CA have been reassigned to Q6429465 --Cbrescia (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cbrescia: Don't blank the item until a deletion is proposed. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: Sorry, taking that into account for the next time, thanks. --Cbrescia (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a merge is better? Q.Zanden questions? 23:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Redirect created by Cycn, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q186170

doom metal (Q186170): subgenre of heavy metal music: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Page removed from tawiki. Less content --Nan (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose, not empty, by far! - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted Several valid site links. Lymantria (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q679692

biopharmaceutical (Q679692): type of pharmaceutical drug product: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Deleted in tawiki. Low content. --Nan (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose, not empty! - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted Several valid site links. Lymantria (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q28910057

Category:1937 establishments in Mandatory Palestine (Q28910057): Wikimedia category: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Connecting to the wrong category (a redirect) by accident. --Russian Rocky (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also a link to commons that is not a redirect. Q.Zanden questions? 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not deleted Valid (though incorrect) sitelink. Lymantria (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Q16765614

Q16765614: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Template is deleted/replaced on the local wikis after the canton was abolished in 2015 --- cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Deleted by Lymantria (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion: Item created by @Dhx1: and no more notable

• Only istanza di (P31)and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• Without usage using "Wikis subscribed to this entity"
• Checked 3 March from 18:32 to 20:39 CET

1. Q25991739 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q25991737 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q25991746 (delete | history | links | logs)
4. Q25991747 (delete | history | links | logs)
5. Q25991744 (delete | history | links | logs)
6. Q25991745 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy ValterVB (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all. These are all semiconductor technology nodes. They are likely to be useful as property values for microchips (including CPUs). SJK (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all. I've added manufacturers and/or references to all items. For most of the items suggested for removal (except the to-be-developed process technologies) I can find numerous chips on Wikipedia/Wikidata which would refer to those process technologies. It's just a case of adding them over time. Dhx1 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done now sourced --ValterVB (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulk deletion: Item created by @Pustekuchen2014: and no more notable

• Only istanza di (P31)and no other claim
• No sitelink
• No backlink
• Without reference
• Without usage using "Wikis subscribed to this entity"
• Checked 3 March from 18:32 to 20:39 CET

1. Q21125217 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q21125429 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q21126401 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Does not meet the notability policy ValterVB (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose deleting family names. In many cases we already have items on people with this family name. And even when we don't, a family name can still be notable even if we haven't yet identified any notable individuals who have that name. SJK (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  can still be notable – but the evidence is missing. Would you oppose deleting an item about surname "ABCDEFGH", just because somebody created it and labelled as such? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Here is an easy test: for each of those surnames Zibold (Q21125217), Faig (Q21125429), Rugart (Q21126401), google them: Zibold surname, Faig surname, Rugart surname – you get multiple pages talking about each of those surnames. Now try the same test for "ABCDEFGH" – ABCDEFGH surname – do you get the same sort of results? (Well, you do find this rather amusing article, but that is about the first name "ABCDEFG" and the surname "OPQRST UVWXYZ", not the alleged surname "ABCDEFGH".) Is it too much to ask people to spend a few minutes googling the labels and skimming the results before deleting something (or nominating it for deletion)? SJK (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Concerning notability: The first two seem notable, having an incoming link. The Rugart item I think is not: it is unsourced and no Rugart name bearer has passed notability here. The fact that googling seems to suggest that the name indeed exists, is IMHO not enough to keep it here. Lymantria (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done 2 linked 1 deleted. --ValterVB (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)