Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2019/12/12

I haven't looked into how much of this is real and original content, but I find enough magazine articles written about him to qualify for Wikipedia article notability. Why not Wikidata? Quakewoody (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated thoughts - After spending a few minutes on Google. I am not sure how most of his hits would fit into a Wikidata item. But I definitely think he has notability. Quakewoody (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

For me a motivational speaker with ~2.500 followers at Twitter sounds a bit funny but actually the item meets the policy - there is one reference IRL (Forbes). I'd love to see some more references added, and the item can be kept. --Wolverène (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Prior to the nomination, someone removed a few pieces of data from the item - including the reference to the Forbes article. I have since restored them and added a few more. Quakewoody (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q75212728

Q75212728: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability Quakewoody (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q75521426

Silke Bagschik (Q75521426): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy David (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Contains a sitelink to Wikimedia Commons, which falls under notability criteria 1. Useful for providing metadata about who a subject of images on Wikimedia Commons is. Väsk (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons links are normally not enough per WD:N #1.4 , that's why e.g. bots don't create items for unlinked Commons categories. If it had interwiki links to another 'main' wiki projects or had serious reference URL's within statements it wouldn't be nominated here. --Wolverène (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

#1.4 is limited to "category items", i.e. P31:Q4167836. This is an item about an identifiable real world subject, which means that doesn't apply. There's no good reason to completely ban Wikidata items for Commons categories about people. I could imagine there would be a problem if items were created about people who uploaded pictures to Commons for self-promotion, but this item is a business person with fairly high rank within a major company, so that isn't the case here. Väsk (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted; there is structural need. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q3595829

I think the name, Bahauddeen Kooriyad is the second name of Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Wikipedia articles written about him were deleted early. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bahauddeen_Muhammed_Nadwi Kutyava (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kutyava: The Bengali page still exists, but is now linked to Bahauddeen Kooriyad (Q71200674), and the Urdu and Arabic articles also exist, but are not linked to any Wikidata item. Probably notable as vice chancellor (Q19542123) of Darul Huda Islamic University (Q3595823). Peter James (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The statements need checking for accuracy, I removed a date of death that wasn't verified and was probably false, and there are two dates of birth currently stated. Peter James (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted; per sitelinks —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q11817055

Tor Pilica (Q11817055): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Q56340818 --WrS.tm.pl (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two pl.WP entries for this merge. A native speaker will need to translate to determine what needs done. Quakewoody (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Ice Arena Tomaszów Mazowiecki (Q56340818) was built in 2017, Q11817055 is the item for what it replaced. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted as we have plwiki sitelinks on both items; it also seems that this is not exactly the same, which means that we want to keep both items anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q218139

Zodiac Aerospace (Q218139): former French aerospace supplier, integrated with Safran Group: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

It is linked to the wikifr page Safran Seats and I want to create a wikien Safran Seats page --185.125.224.44 08:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 6 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata has nothing to do with that. The item for Safran Seats is here, created by you. --Wolverène (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted; per sitelinks obviously —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q55096751

Jesús Ángel Pérez Casas (Q55096751): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Just a name - no information at all Bahnmoeller (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Identifiers at https://viaf.org/viaf/46798042/ may be the same person, also possibly http://www.museodezaragoza.es/homenaje-postumo-a-jesus-angel-perez-casas/ and http://w.aragon.es/estaticos/GobiernoAragon/Departamentos/PoliticaTerritorialJusticiaInterior/Documentos/docs/Areas/Informaci%C3%B3n%20territorial/Publicaciones/Coleccion_Territorio/Comarca_Ribera_Alta_del_Ebro/DOCUMENTOS_BLOQUE_II._DE_LA_HISTORIA._1.pdf with dates of birth and death (6 January 1958 - 9 December 2000). Peter James (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep as the author of a WD item, he fits a structural need. Of course, this assumes his work is notable - which isn't my place to say. Quakewoody (talk)

Not deleted per backlink —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:True duplicates/2

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

Empty page; and I see no reason for having two pages about "true duplicates" --Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It used to contain data. It may act as record purposes. Esteban16 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted to keep the page history available —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q18003534

Old Bümpliz Castle and New Bümpliz Castle (Q18003534): ensemble with two castles with common KGS number in the city of Bern, Switzerland: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Double entry --Jwilderm (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be for a site with two castles and shouldn't have been blanked.[1] There is an item for each castle but the heritage status and identifier are for the combined site. Peter James (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep per @Peter James:, @Jwilderm: double entry like this one is quite common. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted; per sitelink —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q31497834

Bhaskar Nagar (Q31497834): village in Palnadu district, Andhra Pradesh, India: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Corresponding page in Tewiki is redirected Chaduvari (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chaduvari: It seems to be a place that exists as it is mentioned on the redirection target (no idea what it says there though). I added a P131. --- Jura 12:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The name is similar, and the redirect is to Bhaskar Nagar (Q4901348), a village. Possibly the same place - I don't know if the ending has any meaning. Peter James (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:MisterSynergy, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q68825631

Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q68825631): IMarEST: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Mistake: a pack is not a revue Manu1400 (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Journal of marine engineering and technology (Online) (Q68825636) is similar; the journal is Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q62698055) for both print and online. Peter James (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jsamwrites: there seems to be a problem with Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q68825631) and Journal of marine engineering and technology (Online) (Q68825636), both created by you: they apparently have incorrect ISSNs. Can you please have a look? I'd otherwise delete both items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I checked on ISSN. There are two separate entries: Journal of marine engineering and technology (Online) and Journal of marine engineering and technology. I corrected the two items. However, I agree Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q68825631) needs to be merged with Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q62698055). If there is no objection, I will merge them or you can delete the most recent one: Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology (Q68825631). John Samuel (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks, Not deleted then. Please merge the items as you have suggested, @Jsamwrites. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Jsamwrites, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q59278656

Delphine Ménard (Q59278656): Wikimedia Foundation Program Officer and Annual Plan Grants: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) This should be deleted because I am not notable and I find this encroaches on my privacy, I would be grateful if this was deleted. Thank you --notafish }<';> 15:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Slaporte, Liuxinyu970226, Robin van der Vliet: Can you explain why you believe that the kind of information you added about the referenced person should be on Wikidata? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep has a valid commonswiki link plus even enough number of statements. @Delphine (WMF): to let she explain more. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Liuxinyu970226: notafish is Delphine (WMF), so she already explained herself. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON, notafish: If that user really want this item to be deleted, before that we need to nominate c:Category:Delphine Ménard to be deleted. Because, under this criteria, that commons category also violates her privacy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Acually, I don't think it does in the same way. I am identified in these pictures, but none of those pictures actually invite anyone to add my parents' names, my relatives' names, my date of birth, my nationality or anything that actually encroaches on my privacy. If anything, the commons category helps me actually to protect my privacy by allowing me to track pictures that could be derogatory, or mislabeled. I don't understand how having a category on commons actually makes me notable enough to become an item on Commons. This is a strange relationship between our two projects. Can someone explain to me the rationale before I ask to delete the category on Commons (which, again, I don't think makes me notable in any way) notafish }<';> 15:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should start at Commons to have the category removed, then this becomes empty and that with the lack of notability should suffice to have Q59278656 deleted. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 14:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See my question above. Thanks! notafish }<';> 15:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If you would not be notable, then why is there a need for a category in Commons? A category on Commons may trigger the automatic creation of a item like this, so deleting it while the Commonscat exist may not be a permanent solution. The additional information that encroaches on your privacy can be deleted by someone with sufficient permissions in a way that it cannot simply be reversed by someone of seen in the history of the item. If you cannot of don't want the commonscat deleted, I think that would be the best way to address your issue. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@notafish:, I looked it up, I think you're best served with this page: Wikidata:Living people. There's a section on privacy violation there. - сyсn - (talk • contribs • logs) 13:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete I don't think WMF staff are notable by default nor should their details be stored by default in Wikidata. A sitelink to Commons isn't sufficient for notability either.
Easiest solution to get this deleted might be to ask HR for it. --- Jura 22:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: Please in the next time, first nominate deletion locally (i.e. Commons:Deletion requests on Commons) first, then here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- No. I think you didn't read or understand my comment. @Liuxinyu970226: Do not add usernames to Wikidata when you know the user doesn't want it to be added. --- Jura 05:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1: Should I ask you to re-write by hands yourself a sentence that Cycn said above? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also I need to mention users that edited commons category to see if that category can be rfded or not: @Sebastian Wallroth, Marcus Cyron, Mike Peel, Varnent, Laurentius:@Mazuritz: (or should this be deleted by a staff member account as office action?) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep I'm sorry, @Notafish, but I think you are notable enough to have a Wikidata item given the important roles you've had within the Wikimedia movement over the years. Having a Wikidata item shouldn't be an invasion of your privacy: things like names of relations or date of birth should only be added if they have already been published elsewhere. This is the same as anyone else that has a Wikidata item about them, so if this is a problem in this case then it's also a much wider problem that should be addressed. Having information on Wikidata is increasingly important for Commons, with the infobox providing context in the category, and in future the structured data about each photograph, it's a natural relationship rather than a strange one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Mike Peel, would you support an article about me to be on Wikipedia? Probably not. I have great trouble understanding how being part of Wikimedia makes me notable in any way. We don't do this for every one person who had a hand in Facebook, do we? Or in Google? Why would we make an exception for Wikimedia? There are probably no or very very few outside sources (outside of Wikimedia) that mention my name as even being part of Wikimedia and I would never ever pass the notability test on any Wikipedia, even on the most relaxed ones about notability. But because I happen to have volunteered and worked for Wikimedia, I get a Wikidata item on me. Strange. See some of the arguments below that are way more persuasive than just me asking for the deletion. notafish }<';> 10:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Notafish: "would you support an article about me to be on Wikipedia?" - yes, I would. I generally think we should do better at covering Wikimedians than we do for Facebook/Google (and I think we should get better there too). Perhaps there should at least be a 'notable Wikimedians' list based on Listeria in the future, which would use information from Wikidata items like this one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, that is an interesting take on notability standards. I find it to be a way to bias the encyclopedia towards well.. us, which is a bit strange, I must say. Regardless of this conversation here, which is on a very personal level. Thank you for your answer. notafish }<';> 09:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Former board member of Wikimedia Deutschland, an organization, that handle every year millions of €. Because of that there is a Commons Ccategory for very actual and every former board member. So is should be here on Wikidata. Commons and Wikidata have a different understanding of natability. And due to Delphine Ménards other roles in the movement I dcan't see any cause or possibility to delete this. People who reach an adience must accept to be rocogniced. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: apparently you don't. --- Jura 20:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
People who reach an audience? Was heißt das überhaupt? Jeder, der je in einem Verein gearbeitet hat, sollte ein Wikidata Item haben? Ich sehe mein Engagement in Wikimedia als keinen Grund, dass mich "notable" macht. notafish }<';> 10:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete - The notability policy section 1.4 states that a Commons category on its own is not enough. Secondly I see no serious and publicly available links given in the item to support notability. Moreover the item is only used ones, and I see no structural need for this item. Finally the subject itself requests deletion. As such it should be deleted. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Taketa: See Cycn's comments above, a Commons category is already enough for populating an item that meets Notability #2 and #3 rules, anyway, if you really want this item to be deleted, please ask Commons to delete first, or ask trust and safety team to request an office action-based deletion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I asked T&S yesterday for this item, to see if deletion is possible based on office action or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- We have a very specific guideline that says a Commons category as the only interwikilink is not enough for a Wikidata item, which is contrary to what Cycn says. We follow that guideline (1.4). I mentioned above that I see no evidence of noteworth under 2 or 3. The person is an employee. We don;t need 100 employees per large company to have their own item. Please provide evidence of 2 or 3, like articles in secundary neutral sources which are specifically about them. If it is noteworthy under 2 or 3 it doesn;t matter in the slightest what happens to a Commons category. If that were the case it would be notable even without the category. The Commons category does not make a difference under 1,2 or 3. There is no office action required, this is Wikidata, we have admins who can delete under our own guidelines. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  - @Taketa:Wikistream (Q39655638)creator (P170)Delphine Ménard (Q59278656), this is already enough to indicate that why Q59278656 is following the third rule of WD:N: It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    - I do not consider a single statement a need. Though it could be, in this example I don't consider it a need. Even the guideline uses plural (WD:N 3). Though it is obviously subjective what constitutes a need, and it is only my personal opinion. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete - I agree with Jura and Taketa. --E4024 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete - I can't see what kind of notability that should support an entry in Wikidata in this case. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@E4024, Oleryhlolsson: Even used as a creator (P170) value? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not something I am very knowledgeable about, decide it without my input please. --E4024 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted; the items fulfills Wikidata's notability criteria due to the existence of the Wikimedia Commons sitelink and the backlink from Wikistream (Q39655638). I explicitly mention that WD:N, section 1.4 does not apply here because the item in question is not a category item.

More general background: the Wikidata project itself does not have a particularly specific notability guideline; rather, item notability is evaluated on a pretty technical basis as in this case: the existence of the Commons category is sufficient to be notable for Wikidata as well; a specific personal background in general or the fact that one has worked for Wikimedia in particular does not have any implication here, and this decision does not make all people with a relationship to Wikimedia notable for Wikidata.

From the first moment on Wikidata was meant to be sort of a superset of Wikimedia content due to its obligation to host interwikilinks, and to act as a data provider for the Wikimedia projects; thus we are used work with the content we get from the projects, rather than excluding content because we deem it not notable. The relation to the Commons project, which has very lax notability guidelines by ifself, has changed in the past ~2 years due to the Structured Data at Commons (SDC) efforts and the Wikidata-Infobox at Commons. For a long time, items with only a sitelink to Commons were not considered notable as there was simply too much content that way. However, meanwhile quite a lot of (Commons) users have lobbied for a more relaxed take on Commons content notability, and our notability policy was changed accordingly. This now allows a widespread use of the Wikidata-Infobox at Commons, and also use of Wikidata items for SDC in depicts (P180) statements on Commons media files—but the data needs to be hosted at Wikidata. "Structural need", although not a formally defined term, usually does include use of the data in other Wikimedia projects as well.

I personally have a lot of objections regarding this new approach, particularly since Commons contains a lot of (self-)promotional content that they do not really get rid of, and due to the fact that content imported to Wikidata from Wikimedia Commons is usually unsourced, unlike most of the Wikipedia content. Yet, keeping items such as the one in question is standard practice meanwhile at Wikidata, and I do not see a reason to differ from the standard practice in this case. However, I also note that we would not hesitate to delete the item if the content at Wikimedia Commons was deleted. The backlink from Wikistream (Q39655638) could in that case probably be removed as that item by itself is sort of non-notable. I would delete the item even without a new discussion if the Commons content was deleted—just ask me via email or my talk page.

@notafish, Delphine (WMF): sorry about the outcome. I hope that my lengthy comment does explain the situation sufficiently, otherwise do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page (others are invited to join as well). Mind that I have also removed some unsourced information from the item about you. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q78222534

Kiyomi Hayashi (Q78222534): Japanese geographer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Redundant : Q76283669 --野良人 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done Redirect created by User:Wolverène, you can do it yourself next time. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q78157181

Q78157181: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Blank item, contains only a label that doesn't provide sufficient context Kostas20142 (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by Ymblanter (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q78146093

Q78146093: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Kostas20142 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by Ymblanter (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q78216976

Q78216976: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam Kostas20142 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by Ymblanter (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q78167309

Q78167309: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Vandalism Kostas20142 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by Ymblanter (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q77037356

Santalahti Paper Mill (Q77037356): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable P134toP4913 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Because of translation issues, I can't do it. But I would like to see someone cleanup and verify the connections. It looks like to me that AJ Renquist owns AJ Renquist? Quakewoody (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Quakewoody: I'll be happy to any cleanup, if you identify the issues. All the connections are referenced, are they not? Finnusertop at work (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

For starters, there are the little icons next to some of the data displaying where some of the problems are. Quakewoody (talk)

@Quakewoody: Fixed. Finnusertop at work (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to give this one a

Keep because of the structural needs. Even my previous comment AJ Renquist owns AJ Renquist has been cleared up. Quakewoody (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q33517480

Windischeschenbach (Q33517480): human settlement in Germany: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

CEB spam Bahnmoeller (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not spam, it's the largest human settlement (Q486972) in Windischeschenbach (Q502642). Peter James (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep settlement and municipality are not identical. --Pasleim (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted per Pasleim and two cebwiki sitelinks —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q77211536

Q77211536: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not Notable P134toP4913 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

May this be a redirect to Q1530061? How synonymous plausibility and credibility are? --Wolverène (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion they are not synonyms, but I'm not native English speaker. Taivo (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q77284078

Alexandra Bokova (Q77284078): American-Russian actress: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not Notable P134toP4913 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that she played the leading role in the horror film Mermaid Down, we don't have the item on it but the film looks like notable for Wikidata. The Google requests shows several links about her and especially about that role as mermaid. --Wolverène (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Added a bit more information. --Wolverène (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Right now, she doesn't pass. If someone created a WP article for that movie... but, even the production crews and cast members of that movie are lacking representation on WD. Same for the other credits she has on IMDb, very little notability found connected with any of it. Quakewoody (talk)
- I've added reference URL's, so the item is already notable. I can also create a couple of Wikipedia pages but they will not be of course in en- or ruwp. Creating a page about the film is somewhat harder. --Wolverène (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I created two WD items/movie titles and linked the various cast members. I'm still not sold on notability for any of it, but at least the connections have been built. Quakewoody (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. On Friday I'll pay more attention on these three. --Wolverène (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't do this within the term as I had troubles with my PC. I didn't forget. --Wolverène (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Virtually done, and an interwiki is created. Keep, I'll expand items about films in a near future. --Wolverène (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Not deleted per sitelink —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q77278090

Q77278090: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spam/Not Notable P134toP4913 (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am going to say we keep it because it is has a notable parent company. But I will let others decide in case there are WD rules about subsidiaries. Quakewoody (talk)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q20433613

Q20433613: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There's already Q25301 StanProg (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by MisterSynergy (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Q77350030

Q77350030: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Gibberish by an xwiki vanity spammer Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

On hold. It contains sitelinks, but has been marked for speedy deletion. Once they're deleted, it can be deleted here too. Esteban16 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Q77459175 merged into older-created Q77350030 so I guess it's now better to discuss exactly Q77350030. --Wolverène (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)