Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2023/11/09

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

Q113815479

Q113815479: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam --2800:BF0:8106:13EC:C863:14CA:ECB9:7701 19:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

They are linked between spam articles.--2800:BF0:8106:13EC:C863:14CA:ECB9:7701 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted by Wolverène (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q119446254

Q119446254: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted by Wolverène (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q123374521

Q123374521: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Please can you delete this? --LucasKannou (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted by Ajraddatz (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q120866251

Arthur Rubin (Q120866251): American singer and actor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Lymantria (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep notable, see for example https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Arthur-Rubin/ and winner of a Tony Award in 1986 https://www.tonyawards.com/winners/year/1986/category/any/show/any/ Piecesofuk (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Not deleted Withdrawn. @Piecesofuk: Thanks for the updates. --Lymantria (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q123376397

Q123376397: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

WD:N Рассилон (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Deleted by Wolverène (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q123377006

EuroVelo 14 - Waters of Central Europe (Q123377006): Еuropean cycling route: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Empty duplicate of Q103159272 that I mistakenly just created Hanbaato (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Wolverène, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q117844136

Archibald Olive (Q117844136): (1818-1903) husband of Mary Narcissus Spain: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability. Together with the two other members of his family. Emu (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 3 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep "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." We don't use English Wikipedia notability, all meet the Wikidata notability standard. Findagrave and Familysearch are "serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can be described by "serious and publicly available references." is welcome at Wikidata. Eventually all of Findagrave will be loaded. --RAN (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, that’s not exactly our current understanding of notability that we employ in practice. --Emu (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

With accordance to the WD:N criterion 2, I can justify the keeping of the item for his son, John Alexander - that name is listed in the archive. Mr Archibald Olive just lived his life as a farmer, he wasn't either an election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist, we even don't know if he was a respected farmer or not (hopefully he was). A clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity means that we should be sure that mr Olive was known exactly as a farmer professionally, and not just lived at a farm run by someone else. Eventually all of Findagrave will be loaded. - this website works well for those who lived in the English-speaking realm, and even that is not everywhere. It's not very ethical to store the information on random dead people in non-specialized databases, because we don't know if the relatives/descendants agree with it, and if the individuals themselves would be happy to be immortalized if they were alive and had a choice. --Wolverène (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "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." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. --RAN (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. --Wolverène (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. --RAN (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. --Emu (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N, then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Again again: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." If you want to change the policy to make it more like English Wikipedia you can lobby for more restrictions and have us only host "famous" people. You wrote: "no consensus to create an item for every living person." which is correct, because of the amount of work it would take, and we do not have an index of all the people in the world. The largest database of people that we do not host is Findagrave, but that would take years of work, and those are dead people, not living, Archibald Olive died in 1903. For The Peerage, it took a full year to match entries, merge duplicates, and correct errors, which was a fraction of the size of Findagrave. If we were to create an entry for the 7 billion living people in the world at the rate of one a minute, it would take 13,000 years, so no one has plans to do it. --RAN (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of the wording of WD:N. As you are well aware, our interpretation of “serious and publicly available references“ generally refers to independent, not user-generated, not predominantly promotional, selective, authentic and organic material. There seems to be not a single piece of information that anybody who is not part of some sort of community project bothered to record anything about Archibald Olive apart from the people who were required to by law or had some sort of personal connection. It’s no good to quote bits and pieces from WD:N and give them the meaning you like to have. --Emu (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "our interpretation", I think you meant to write: "my own interpretation". See: User:Emu/Notability. --RAN (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Keep per RAN Dsp13 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep at least for a mention in newspaper, which is a public domain resource that can get into Wikisource.--GZWDer (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I admit I didn't notice that the mentions in Memphis Avalanche (Q100277082) and The Tennessean (Q4808006) have been added to the item. There are no permanent URL's to those newspaper articles(?) but they may be a prove of notability, indeed. --Wolverène (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
They are not really newspaper articles, they are (endless) lists of recipients of public funds because of an annual “Fourth of July” claim bill. The mentions read Archibald Olive, of McNairy country, $45.75. and Archibald Olive, McNariy county, $45.47 respectively. Most editors should be able to access those newspapers through The Wikipedia Library. --Emu (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity.

As the newspapers are indisputably serious sources; this is dispositive of the discussion. The nomination ought be withdrawn. Jack4576 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete, mentioning in the list only gives us his name and the county, all the rest stays unsourced as far as Findagrave is not a reliable source. Андрей Романенко (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Reliability is not an issue. Findagrave is a serious and publicly available source, and therefore any entity described within (even if false) qualifies for inclusion as an independent entity Jack4576 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Findagrave is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of Ancestry. It has an error rate comparable to other sources we use. Being crowdsourced and being "reliable", are two different things. See: Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/VIAF errors and Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/LCCN errors for the non-crowdsourced Identifiers we use the most for birth and death dates. --RAN (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s user-generated content, there is no threshold of notability. That’s not a serious source. But we have discussed this many, many times, as you are well aware. --Emu (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep, the nominator makes a serious error. The above discussion reflects that they do not understand the Wikidata guideline, and does not appreciate the important policy reasons for it having been drawn as broadly as it has Jack4576 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done - no consensus for deletion; item is notable under WD:N as described above. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Q117283304

JUDr. Josef Cupka (Q117283304): Czech trustee in bankruptcy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Gymnicus (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Notable per WD:N rule 2. Multiple serious and publicly available references provided. Jklamo (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jklamo Which ones? We generally don’t accept state registries who have to document indiscriminately. --Emu (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of any decision that state registers are not considered serious and publicly available references. Can you link to it for me? Jklamo (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jklamo see User:Emu/Notability#Sources_need_to_be_selective --Emu (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand that's your opinion, Emu, but I don't know of consensus. Dsp13 (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dsp13 Well, there are links to a two-part discussion involving several users, 4 of them admins, and the discussion does seem to indicate a long standing practice. I don’t know of any similiar discussions with a different result. --Emu (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd taken a quick look without looking at the discussion linked - caught up now. The discussion's second part isolates this question. As I understand the argument, understanding notability this way is: (a) longstanding practice; (b) local consensus (I've not been active in WD community discussion, so don't know how far global consensus is possible, or what it looks like); (c) possibly required by technical limitations. But it's not what N-2 currently says: understanding 'serious' this way seems just weird. If this criterion is wanted, I'd be happier if N-2 was changed to say explicitly 'serious, publicly available and selective'. (I think I'd oppose such a change myself at the moment, but am open to learning more.) Dsp13 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We could of course do that. I’m not entirely convinced that such a change in wording would do a lot of good though. See Wikidata talk:Notability#Define_what_a_serious_source_is for some insights about our current understanding of “serious” and about problems that may arise when changing the wording of WD:N --Emu (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete No independent selective coverage --Emu (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Emu. Андрей Романенко (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep per WD:N rule 2. The reasons for deletion provided by User:Emu is reflective of a serious and erroneous understanding of policy Jack4576 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your comment would be more poignant if you could kindly elaborate the merits of this astounding claim. --Emu (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your own comment displays your lack of knowledge about policy, as you are citing your own prose as policy instead of relying on the actual policy as written. Further, you make a serious error by not regarding the references pointed to by Jklamo as being dispositive of this nomination discussion. Jack4576 (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. My “own prose“ cites two discussions that show the understanding of current policy and practice by users with years of experience. But sure, that’s not “actual policy“. Let’s take your word for it, kind user with 92 live edits and an impressive blocking history on en.wp. --Emu (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick with the guidelines as written.

Background discussions by editors, even the discussions of those with years of experience, don't have operative effect unless they are incorporated into a guideline.

The 'current policy' is what is written, not what is contained within those discussions.

The 'current practice' is against policy where those practices conflict with the policy as written.

Here, we have an entity that is identifiable through publicly available sources as per Jklamo. That is all that is required per WD:N. If you disagree, you are free to propose a change to the policy or add additional context to the policy's text. However I suspect such a policy change would be rejected given the deliberately designed wide scope of Wikidata.

Plainly, given the discussion in this thread and in the discussions across other RfDs, your opinion regarding the policy of WD:N is not yet consensus. As it is not consensus, I will, and other users should; continue to oppose it until the position you're claiming is actually adopted as a policy.

Thanks User:Emu Jack4576 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So your argument is basically that you have some rare insights into the meaning of WD:N, especially the word “serious”, and that your insights are somehow more valid than what highly experienced users, many of them admins elected by the community, consider to be consensus. Well, okay. --Emu (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually my argument is that my intuitions regarding the meaning of the word ‘serious’ are ordinary, not rare

and additionally, these intuitions are equally as valid and valuable as users with experience or admin status

I give zero weight to somebody’s status as an experienced community member when deciding what the word ‘serious’ means

I especially give zero weight to somebody’s status as an admin when deciding what the word ‘serious’ means

If you want the word ‘serious’ to mean something other than its ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning; then make that policy change

Otherwise please stop asserting that a localised consensus reached at a particular time, during a community discussion with a limited audience, is somehow relevant here

Clearly, based on the discussions on this page, the community consensus regarding the interpretation of WD:N #2 isn’t as robust as you appear to think

If you want to change the meaning of WD:N beyond its ordinary meaning, I invite you to start an RfC and add additional content to the guideline clarifying what the word ‘serious’ means

Your status as an admin does not mean users here should defer to your preferred interpretation as to what the plain and ordinary meaning of WD:N #2 means.

I accord you no authority on this topic beyond that of another ordinary user. Admins do not have special status when deciding what guidelines mean, that is a matter for the community as a whole. Jack4576 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Couple of things:

There is no such thing as an ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning of “serious”. If there were, this wouldn’t mean that much for the interpretation of the word in context. That’s not how language or the law works.
The RfC process has been broken for a long time. Consensus generally isn’t reached through RfC’s here. This is different to other projects.
Consensus on Wikidata is indeed often reached by a very few people or even with some sort of tacit understanding of current practice. This is different to other projects.
It is true that the admins have no special “voting power”. But they are chosen by the community to enforce consensus which means that they are by and large trusted to discern this consensus. They might be wrong, sure, we are all volunteers and make mistakes, but this is something to consider, especially if there isn’t just one lone renegade admin on a mission.
Discussions on similar items generally are very much alike: There’s Richard (RAN) who has a consistent view of notability that I don’t share but do respect. And there are often those who have created the items or belong to some project or have a special interest in similar items.
After all, I don’t get it. If somebody is an accomplished professional, it’s not that hard to get some minor article in the local paper. That’s enough for notability. --Emu (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Replying:

You're wrong about that. The 'plain meaning' of words is a well established concept in law. Plain meaning incorporates and includes context. Google 'plain meaning' on Google Scholar if you wish, you'll find that it is extremely well established concept. All words under this conceptual framework have a 'plain meaning', including the word 'serious'.
The RfC process being 'broken' (in your view, personally I think its fine) is not a reason to start pretending we have made changes to policies, that we haven't actually made
WikiData does not have a different approach to 'consensus' as other projects. Consensus is always reached by the community as a whole, across all of the projects, including this one. What you're claiming here is a pretty remarkable claim, and I've seen no indication from the Wikimedia foundation that WikiData is exceptional when it comes to community consensus based governance.
Admins are chosen by the community to enforce consensus that is established by the community, they do not have the power to override community consensus to put forward their own views. Nor to they have the power to assert a false consensus, nor do they have the power to assert that a localised consensus has the power to override the plain meaning of guidelines as they are written.
My views on notability are consistent with RAN's.
"If somebody is an accomplished professional, it’s not that hard to get some minor article in the local paper. That’s enough for notability." Yes, that is of course the case. However, the hypothetical you are proposing here is much much higher of a bar than the actual wording of WD:N #2.

Jack4576 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I hold a law degree (although not in Common Law), I think you can safely assume that I know what “plain meaning“ is.

The rest of your reasoning shows a misunderstanding of how Wikidata works: Yes, consensus is reached by the community, no, the Foundation doesn’t regulate how this consensus is reached. It is generally not done by RfC on Wikidata. What is indeed special to Wikidata (if you compare it to en.wp or de.wp) is that much of daily operations isn’t codified or current practice has been different to what guidelines suggest for many years. It would certainly be better if guidelines reflected current practice but it often doesn’t. Maybe that’s what confuses you.

Your whole point hinges on the notion that you and Richard somehow know best how to interpret the word “serious” and that the rest of the community somehow is on your side but has been strangely silent on the issue for many years of administrative overreach. Could be. Not so sure what happens to that theory once you apply Ockham’s razor. --Emu (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that you have a law degree I am puzzled then by your statement that; 'There is no such thing as an ordinary, plain, and intuitive meaning of “serious”'. That's a seriously contestable claim, and one that scholars have argued about for years. Nevermind though, lets not get bogged down in a debate about the philosophy of language and interpretation. (Although I'd highly recommend to you the work of Brian Slocum if this is of interest to you)

Regardless, I do think it is relatively robust and defensible position to take a plain-meaning approach when applying Wikidata's guidelines. To do otherwise when interpreting the language there as expressed risks straining the words as if their meaning somehow incorporates years of background discussion. Plainly I disagree with that being how Wikimedia's sites operate, and again, I haven't any reason why WikiData should be treated differently aside from your assertions above to the contrary.

If the guidelines and current practice are in conflict, then the guidelines win out. That is my position.

Another way I would articulate my position on this issue is; 'how do I know the meaning of the word serious? I know it when I see it.'

"Your whole point hinges on the notion that you and Richard somehow know best how to interpret the word “serious” and that the rest of the community somehow is on your side"

This is not at all my position. My point is that we are ordinary members of the community, competent in the English language; and are qualified to express our reasonably held position as to how the guidance material should be applied as written. Other members of the community, including yourself, are also entitled to your reasonably held positions as to how the guidance material should be applied. If you want to assert a special interpretation of the word 'serious' that goes beyond its ordinary plain meaning, then by all means, obtain a change to the guidelines. I will follow whatever the text is.

Until that occurs I will continue to apply the guidelines on their face, as they are written. I do think it is more than fair to apply the word 'serious' as both Richard and I have done so above, and there are policy benefits to doing so. If you have a different view, you are entitled to it. This is the nature of consensus. Not every discussion or disagreement in consensus-based forums are able reach resolution; impasses do occasionally occur. As you'd know as a lawyer, such conflicts in the interpretation of language are often an inevitable part of any decision making process with multiple potential outcomes.

If you want Wikidata to follow the positions that "state registers are not considered serious and publicly available references", or that social media profiles are never serious references for their subjects, then by all means add that policy position to the guidance. Until that happens though the only relevant factor I will have in mind when applying WD:N #2 will be the guidance provided by the words as articulated. This is not a claim to 'special knowledge', this is merely a claim that as a competent speaker of the English language; I am confident that I have a strong enough intuitive grasp of the meaning of the word 'serious' so as to be able to productively contribute to these discussions. In case it assists you in understanding my position, my views on language and definitional issues are highly influenced by Wittgenstein.

I think Richard's position on how the guidelines work is a robust position, and my intention is to keep following Richard's approach whilst participating here whilst contributing as constructively and productively as possible. Jack4576 (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, my position on the meaning of the word 'serious' is:

"I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that's okay"

Jack4576 (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s a lot of text that basically boils down to: “Yeah but I don’t want to know how Wikidata works because it should work the way I think it should. Also I like my interpretation of words better.“ Is that how you earned your blocks on en.wp? Also, how Wittgenstein of all people would help you defending this position is beyond me, especially if you consider his PI (PU) positions. --Emu (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position, and its frankly as disconcerting as it is concerning that as an administrator you would read my comment and then misrepresent my position in that way. Admins should be above straw-man arguments. I am clearly not saying the what you've written above in quotes.

Wittgenstein is relevant in that you keep pointing to special rules/cases to elaborate upon the true meaning of the word 'serious' as it is applied at Wikidata. This is fallacious for similar reasons that Wittgenstein criticizes the practice of attempting to divine the meaning of words through definition.

My position is that the word 'serious' has its plain and ordinary meaning defined by its general usage across the English language. I have a sufficient command of the English language to interpret and apply the word 'serious' as it appears in WD:N. I'm not going to be deferring to your assertion that I should qualify this interpretation of the word 'serious' by reading words into the guideline that aren't actually there in the policy.

I'm happy, additionally, to follow clear consensus. What you've pointed to really isn't that. The discussions you've got listed on your userpage are questionable in whether they actually represent consensus. As another user noted above: "I understand that's your opinion, Emu, but I don't know of consensus." Jack4576 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering that users including: myself, Granpar, RAN, as well as others in this thread all collectively disagree the view that 'sources must be selective'; I'd say its fairly clear that the site lacks consensus on this issue. If you want a formal resolution of this, open an RfC or change the policy.

I would have thought it obviously the case that it is not best practice to point to singular discussions as if they're somehow representative of a consensus among the Wikidata community at large. Most of us didn't see that discussion, and are unable to contribute at this point because it's been archived.

I'm going to open an RfC on this. Jack4576 (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep We have make a distinction between showing someone exists versus "do we want to upload an entire directory with a bot". --RAN (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done - no consensus for deletion, and Wikidata tends to skew towards inclusion so long as the item is not blatant promotion, and describes something that exists and has independent verification. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)