Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Requests for deletions

Items that do not meet Wikidata's notability policy can be deleted. Please nominate items for deletion 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.

Please use {{Q+}} the first time you mention an item. Unless you use the gadget, please also ping the item's creator in your request (or ping the bot operator, when appropriate) if they are still active on Wikidata and have contributed the majority of information in that item.

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

Duplicate items should be merged, not deleted: see Help:Merge.

Do not blank items in anticipation of deletion. In particular, do not remove sitelinks, even if you have requested the deletion of the page in the sitelink's target wiki or if you think that sitelinks of this type should not have Wikidata items.

This is not the place to request undeletion. Please follow the instructions in Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion instead.

More information

Add a new request

Manual requests
To add a request, you can also add: == {{Q|ITEMID}} == {{rfd links|ITEMID|REASON}} A_reason_why_the_item_should_be deleted. --~~~~ Change ITEMID to the page you want deleted (should be in the form Q###). Please also add a reason (REASON), or it will probably be ignored if it is not an obvious case of vandalism. All requests should go to the bottom of the page.

Bulk deletions
To request the deletion of multiple items for the same reason: Click here

Translate this header box!

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 Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2026/07/22.

Requests for deletions

medium

_{~55 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}

Template:Burnham Cabinet

User:IN4 Group 2019

User:Its Bartosz-logoswikia

User:MilxtrixSK

User:NGCU NEXT GENERATION C. UNIVERSITY

User:Querymint

User:Rosskosherton

User:Sharon Jovian

User:ShivRajToronto

User:UBX/ASD

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Rollbacker

if this list is out of date.

Requests

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

Q66480449

Wikimedia surname disambiguation page (Q66480449): type of Wikimedia disambiguation page: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Old RFD (Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2020/01/21#Wikimedia_disambiguation_page_subclasses) ended due to "withdrawn". For me this surname disambiguation page seems to be existing because of solo project of svwiki sv:Kategori:Efternamnsförgreningssidor. Surnames are different from DAB stuff and shouldn't be messed with each other Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not really sure it makes sense to have different types of disambiguation pages. If things are grouped by types then wouldn't they be Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) instead? I think "types of disambiguation" is really a conflation with a different concept. On the other hand it makes sense that for some disambiguation topics, everything related to that would naturally fit into only one type of thing. These are cases where a disambiguation degrades to effectively be a set index article. Then the main difference would be whether it is tagged as disambiguation or set index as typically the style rules for those two are different. For example since this RfD is about "surname disambiguation page", think of some surname, then consider disambiguation for that topic. There might some items that are named after that surname or coincidentally named the same or similar enough to be there but often everything of note is basically related to that surname so in effect such a page also degrades to an "set index" list. Now if the page is set to be "disambiguation" the rules are tighter but the page can organically grown beyond a "set index" list of only one type of thing but if it is tagged as "set index" it is restricted by type but then freer in how the list of items can be edited and maintained. This is why conversions between these two concepts should not be a problem provided it is done properly but the two concepts should not be conflated with one another and why I believe we do not really need "types of disambiguation" as a concept. —Uzume (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Also courtesy ping for the creator: user:Moebeus--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy and won't be protesting your request:) Moebeus (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I like having separate items that are (in most cases) conceptually distinct but I also see the disadvantages. I'd still slightly vote for keep. And what about Q22808320? As MisterSynergy wrote at the preceding RFD, "Whatever we do to Q22808320 should be done to those ones as well." (i.e. to Q66480449 and Q61996773). Adam78 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"locations of [museum collection] with works not on display"

1. Q131294014 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q126596695 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q130467769 (delete | history | links | logs)
4. Q29343881 (delete | history | links | logs)
5. Q125375828 (delete | history | links | logs)
6. Q30068277 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

These items don't make any sense. Not sure how DeltaBot will respond but in order the number of uses are: 4, 71, 2, 47, 6, 20. For example Pope Leo XIII (Q29906076) (painting) is location (P276) locations of the Neue Pinakothek with works not on display (Q125375828). It should go without saying that a second opinion from someone who is familiar with how museum collections are handled on wikidata is needed before/if these are to be deleted, but I'm nominating them on the basis they don't pass WD:N3 (structural need to make items useful) as a non-location is not a useful location statement. Tæppa (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Tubezlob VIGNERON Jane023 Pigsonthewing Ambrosiani Spinster Wittylama Fuzheado Daniel Mietchen Marsupium Martingggg Anne-LaureM Beat Estermann Manu1400 Mauricio V. Genta Patafisik MartinPoulter Tris T7 BeatrixBelibaste Clifflandis Mrtngrsbch Reciproque Weadock313 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC) ProtoplasmaKid Crowjane7 Scarey1 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Zblace Suna no onna Antoine2711 S.v.Mering Stefan Karl C3r098 Tderflinger

Notified participants of WikiProject Museums --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

These items are used to describe the location of objects in museum depots whose more precise location is not known. --Marsupium (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Though I applaud the attempt to create overviews of works on show, there is no way we will ever be accurate in this, and using the location of the museum is the best way for a member of the public to be informed about the location of the work, whether it's in depot or not. Most depots are very dynamic as the collection often earns money (or saves money on insurance payments) by lending works long or short term to exhibitions. A location statement with the museum is not incorrect, even if the painting is not on show, as the museum is the main contact. That said, some museums are so notorious for clinging to their ownership (possibly for insurance reasons) that they have works out on loan for over a century. National museums like the Rijksmuseum or Louvre come to mind. Even under those circumstances however, the painting may not be on show in the museum that "holds" it. I therefore find using the holding institution as the location as the more precise information, unless specific dates can be given (which I sometimes add for exhibitions when no other location data is known for works held in private collections). Jane023 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Just as an extra tip to others reading here: I always make a point of asking at the front desk for paintings that I feel should be on show (or on better display), even when I know the answer. Having spent some time in museums I know that some do record the questions asked by the public. Jane023 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request: "list of Wikidata reasons for" items

• list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174): Wikidata internal entity list: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)
• list of Wikidata reasons for preferred rank (Q76637123): Wikidata internal entity list: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Incorrect modelling. "List" created by has part(s) statements. All the items of each "list" can be inferred by querying for instance of or subclass of Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697) or Wikibase reason for preferred rank (Q71533077). Destined to be woefully out of date, if it isn't already. William Graham (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• The list of reasons for deprecation links to Help:Deprecation/List of Reasons for Deprecation, it would be useful to have something similar for preferred rank and to link them from the "Wikibase reason" items (and to include instances of subclasses, such as better described by P807 "separated from" (Q106651934), an instance of improper use of Wikidata property (Q107278014)). The P527 statements can be removed. Peter James (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The property has been my starting point of flagging deprecated items, solely because I could easily find it (presumably when I saw a reason on another item and clicked on it, then navigating to the list). I wouldn't have found a query or even the help page, because I wouldn't have known to look for it. I still quite regularly use that list and Ctrl + F to find the best reason to give, albeit being aware that it is not complete.

I believe the talk page of list of Wikidata reasons for deprecation (Q52105174) illustrates the problem with it quite well and directs to further resources (for anyone who finds it). Improvements could certainly be made, but with 500+ reasons and counting, it surely is a complex issue. Fallen Sheep (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Q75500610

list of Wikidata identifiers (Q75500610): list: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

"list of Wikidata" type item that has no meaningful use. William Graham (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep, in relation with Wikidata:WikiProject Supertemplates/doc/All properties, a project to make a documentation of Wikidata properties. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Can you explain how this item furthers the goal of that project? Best I can tell this item doesn't have any real use other than being linked to a page in Wikidata namespace. Also that Wikiproject appears to largely be inactive. William Graham (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Q135656125

Roll of the Baronage of Scotland (Q135656125): public record registering barons and all titles in the Baronage of Scotland: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Non-notable, promotional item does not meet notability requirements. No valid sitelinks --Nayyn (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_483#baronage.com about the reliable of this supposed source Nayyn (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Q135656125

Roll of the Baronage of Scotland (Q135656125): public record registering barons and all titles in the Baronage of Scotland: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Non-notable, no valid sitelinks to item, promotional entry --Nayyn (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 7 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The reliability of this item to be used as a reliable source is contentious and appears to be used in a promotional capacity, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_483#baronage.com Nayyn (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't find any official record of this or its parent organisation the "Baronage of Scotland Association" But unless there is evidence it's producing fake information then I think it should be considered in the same way as other personal genealogy websites like The Peerage (Q21401824) Piecesofuk (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Q136210742

Xggm (Q136210742): family name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Spurious creation Quesotiotyo (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There is an ID, though its popularity don’t make it notable enough—we have to focus on knower family names, if we did so, we can focus on these less known family names (e.g. Xggm (Q136210742)) QwertyZ34 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There is also Xggf (Q136210737); the "ggm" and "ggf" could refer to great-grandmother and great-grandfather but I'm not sure what the "x" could be. Not family names. Peter James (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

And Xgreat (Q136210733) ("No results matching your search on Geneanet. Please try another surname.") Some of the other names with first letter X don't look like real family names; the links work but it's unclear what they are (possibly a placeholder for missing letters). Peter James (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

They are probably parts of some double family names: i. e. "Ximenez Clemente" has part: Ximenez (Q37485332) QwertyZ34 (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Some, such as Xayaphet (Q136210746), are names but Xxman (Q136210739) is probably not. Peter James (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Weird—these are probably family name of East, Southeast Asia origin—therefore these names are ranked low. QwertyZ34 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Xayaphet is, and several others are real names, but looking again at Xxman, it seems to be Twentyman with "Twenty" replaced by Roman numerals and others may also be abbreviations (such as for "Christ" as part of a name, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/X#Etymology_5). Xgg, Xggm and Xggf and Xgreat are unlikely to be names at all, Xiii is XIII, the regnal number of Louis XIII of France (Q737533), not his family name, Xley seems to be usually written as "...XLEY" suggesting it's incomplete (also a few "PI.XLEY" or "PI-XLEY"), and I don't know what Xcn (or XCn) could be. Peter James (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete while these concepts could have a meaning in genealogy (some kind of abbreviation or placeholder?), it's very unclear and clearly not family name. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Q115522591

Michel Lunarca hoax (Q115522591): fake person invented for a prank: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Hoax created by a Wikipedian: French press article about it; en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Lunarca; w:fr:Wikipédia:Le Bistro/26 septembre 2025#Encore un canular ? Thibaut (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if it's a hoax I still think we should  Keep the item and flag it as a hoax as it's reported as true in reliable sources like Le Figaro (Q216047) La savoureuse histoire du «croque-monsieur» Piecesofuk (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This article from the Figaro and the book it references are classic examples of WP:CIRCULAR. Thibaut (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. For reasons of reliability, hoaxes originating from vandalism should not be kept. The Figaro article and the book do not qualify as reliable sources, as they merely repeat the false claim — an instance of WP:CIRCULAR, as Thibaut has pointed out. --Guise (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

There are examples of hoaxes being kept in Wikidata. Even a recent Wikipedia hoax got its own Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_MacMasters_hoax Piecesofuk (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as long as the item is about the hoax itself. Meets WD:N#2 with [1]. Skyshifter ^talk 22:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I'm not sure it's borderline regarding WD:N#2 could a circular reference really be considered a "serious and publicly available references" ? Also we have other items about hoaxes, including 24 Wikipedia hoax (Q125168941). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Q132133377

North West Chilterns Community Board (Q132133377): Community Board of Buckinghamshire Council: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability? Dorades (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this item could be fixed to make it notable. The website uses an official government domain. Ternera (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Buckinghamshire Council (Q65052846) (a unitary authority (Q21561328)) have restructured their community boards, something that appears to be wholy unique to them and not in use in other councils in England (or the United Kingdom rather), hence the link 404ing. In 2026 we have further restructuring of councils and I was planning on raising the question of how to tag them when that happens (and thus wikidata adjusted, where some users are also advocating to split administrative civil parishes from their namesake village on wikidata). This specific item is no different from the 15 other instances of Buckinghamshire Council Community Board (Q132130388) so any improvements would have to be made to all 16, or the class item Q132130388 . Tæppa (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, are there any working links that describe this board in the meantime? --Dorades (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The web page is archived several times between December 2020 and January 2025.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201202114416/https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/community-and-safety/improving-your-local-community/north-west-chilterns-community-board/

https://web.archive.org/web/20250113023854/https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/community-and-safety/improving-your-local-community/north-west-chilterns-community-board/ Tæppa (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Q63367814

Guardian (Q63367814): Australian retail pharmacy business: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable. Dorades (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It was once a noteworthy pharmacy chain in Australia at the time the item was created. The main reason for creation was inclusion into https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index which allows stores in OpenStreetMap to be mapped back to the Wikidata item of the brand/chain.

Guardian no longer exists and has been folded into/rebranded as Amcal. I've added replaced by/replaces statements to both Guardian (Q63367814) and Amcal (Q63367373) with reliable references.

Given that there is reliable public information about the previous Guardian brand/chain of pharmacies, and it's now part of the history of Sigma Healthcare and the Amcal brand/chain of pharmacies where again reliable information is available to reference, I believe the item remains notable as a structural item in Wikidata as part of the history of Sigma Healthcare and Amcal pharmacy brand. Dhx1 (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, are there any sources that do not come from the company that owns/owned this chain? There is also currently no OSM ID.--Dorades (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

2020–2023 local elections in Germany (Q129179889), Q136721271

Were dewiki pages, which now have been deleted. Doesn't make any sense to keep them now. --Printstream (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

They can be improved similar to Q129332129#Q527. Peter James (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

But that's nonsense, the time period is arbitrary; if anything, it should be through new objects for each year. --Printstream (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to say, for example, 2019 elections were followed by 2024 as although states that held elections in one year also did in the other, the same could not be consistently done for other years, it would not be not be a good idea for navigation templates, and is not entirely true for Saxony - 2019 followed by 2024 should be on the relevant election items for the states. Separate items would be more useful (and would allow linking to Category:2019 elections in Germany (Q32094053), Category:2020 elections in Germany (Q65698085) and similar items consistently) but a split should be done before deletion to avoid breaking the link between 2019 and 2024 (unless they are also to be deleted, instead using Q32094053, Q65698085 and similar items directly and relying on the P31 to say that they are local elections). Peter James (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Q135989202

GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool (Q135989202): electronic book published under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There doesnt seem to be any such ebook. The official website just links to a page with relatively little text Trade (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts? @Vicarage:--Trade (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

no opinion Vicarage (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The book is online at https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/, with the full text at https://www.sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_toc.html - but that's already adequately represented by GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool (Q135988886). I don't think it's useful to distinguish between the print edition of the book and a copy of it hosted online. Omphalographer (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this count as an ebook? Trade (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi ! Yes, Q135989202 refers to an ebook in HTML format which could be updated whereas Q135988886 is about a printed version published in 2000. Genium. 10:54, Dec 1, 2025 (UTC+01:00)

Q136309565

Irina Eduardovna Lazareva (Q136309565): engineer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable, only used as a relative of Q43262523

Creator: @User:Maxscheller --MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Possibly notable as Q43262523 has a few sitelinks, but Q136309565 has no references and only one identifier Academic Tree ID (P2381). Peter James (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Q132348179

aurora (Q132348179): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Not notable

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep One of the author of Bunt wie wir: Ein queeres Mal- und Aktivitätenbuch für alle (Q132345440). Fralambert (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

But "instance of: individual animal"? Is this a kind of joke? The official website looks truly like a website of a dog, but i don't think dog can be officially credited as the author of book. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

See last edit history, someone insists this but originally it was "Human". Wargo (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this is someone who is legally and biologically human, and who is doing "identity: dog" for reasons that I'm sure make sense to them. DS (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Where the identity can be verified? Where the subject stated this? Wargo (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Official website, as mentioned; if not then https://web.archive.org/web/20251219214911/https://auri.gay/ but that says "robot-dog-thing" and "ΘΔ" - therian (Q25393510)? - not just "dog". They could name their dog as author - one of the authors of Two-, Three-, and Four-Atom Exchange Effects in bcc ³He (Q29597859) is F. D. C. Willard (Q1386318), a cat, but for aurora (Q132348179) it seems to be about an identity, not an actual dog. individual animal (Q26401003) is correct for a human or a dog, it's just that human (Q5) is more precise and expected for some property constraints. This item seems to exist primarily for Bunt wie wir: Ein queeres Mal- und Aktivitätenbuch für alle (Q132345440); is there anything that makes that item notable? Peter James (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Q132151444

cheap dangerous online shop (Q132151444): type of online shop which is cheap and dangerous for consumers: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Appears to have been created purely to criticize sellers of "cheap Chinese goods" Trivialist (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not criticism by me, it's about that this research topic exist, like every crime does exist even if some people or countries or government have denied.

I created it, just because it's a topic to be known. Pf0al1r (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

"this research topic exist" — could you provide any research literature using such terms? —Yamato Shiya^{大和 士也} (Talk • Contribs) 06:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

e.g. in english:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396654577_How_Hazardous_Chemicals_Present_in_Low-Cost_Products_from_Popular_Chinese_Online_Commerce_Shops_Can_Affect_Human_Health

or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272236568_Dangerous_Substandard_Medicines_An_Increasing_Global_Problem

e.g. in german (translate the pages if you want to understand) https://www.polizei-dein-partner.de/themen/diebstahl-betrug/detailansicht-diebstahl-betrug/artikel/vorsicht-vor-online-shops-aus-fernost.html

it is economic, environmental and danger to health in relation to counterfeit consumer goods

look also about the plagiarism mostly with chinese products, https://www.plagiarius.com/index.php?ID=65 Pf0al1r (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The publication did not establish the term as succinct exact scientific terminology. The item reflect biased observation towards regional related commercial activity. —Yamato Shiya^{大和 士也} (Talk • Contribs) 23:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand, that it's weak in your opinion, but its a fact that this rare term has a huge effect on global economy regarding other economic regions like the EU, or health issues of children.

Even EU authorities and german main news agencies have resarching on this topic to discuss.

So, I disagree. Pf0al1r (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. This is a noun phrase, not a specific entity. Quite frankly, I'm not sure Wikidata is well suited to expressing the existence of this sort of diffuse sentiment, where there's neither a specific source or target. Omphalographer (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. First, I still disagree deleting it.

Second, sure it´s a noun phrase, but some terms in wikidata are noun phrases, even for structural entities

Third, there are scholarly and media articles referenced with this raising topic. Pf0al1r (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Q132888438

Belén Morales Santano (Q132888438): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non relevant person. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Structural need for Q50822527  Keep Granpar (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Structural, but not relevant. Also, no ref included. MiguelAlanCS (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Notable. Passes WDN3 as the mother of Aitana (Q50822527) Piecesofuk (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete If it's only used as relative of notable person and there's not much useful info nor reliable sources, i think it's unneeded. Documenting all family relations is non-essential. And Help:FAQ/Genealogy says that relatives should be only added if covered by reliable secondary sources. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a direct link from an item with sitelinks where this is used (Q50822527), and references in the articles there that could probably be added. There is no string version of Property:P25 that can be used similar to how Property:P2093 is used for Property:P50 with no item. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, reason:

If the father passes in this request, why should the mother can not pass? Pf0al1r (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Q70250066

GNU maintainer (Q70250066): maintainer of a GNU program on behalf of the GNU Project: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item and its subclasses all seem to have been made-up by User:Genium Quesotiotyo (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not made-up, strictly speaking. For Bruno Haible, for example, it's sourced from official GNU website. But i do think it's useless as the same could be modeled via position = software maintainer; affiliated with = GNU project or something like that. And we defininitely don't want a subclass for every small project. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per MSDN.WhiteKnight; many of the linked items should be removed as well (replacing them with relationships which don't involve a single-purpose entity). Creating unique entities to represent maintainership of specific projects, or maintainership of a project which is affiliated with GNU, is an unhelpful complication - in particular, it makes it more difficult to query the database to find maintainers of a software project. Omphalographer (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree  Delete. I believe the way to model these is just to have maintained by (P126) on the project item as in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18968627#P126 Then on the maintainer's items an occupation (P106) software maintainer (Q1420140). You can view what a person is maintaining by clicking on "show derived statements" (you may need to enable "relatedItems" in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets ) I think position held (P39) should only be for more official roles eg politician (Q82955) Piecesofuk (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

It's interested to show the position held as in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ludovic_Court%C3%A8s and that's the role of Wikidata allowing that. Genium. 13:28, Dec 26, 2025 (UTC+01:00)

A position related to each GNU package is a subclass of this item, which is a lot of of people over the years. This is the best way to organize this data. For example, for GNU Emacs, there have been many GNU Emacs maintainers over the years, each one was also known GNU maintainer. The same for each package. I plan to contribute on this for the next twenty years.  Keep, thankyou. Genium. 18:28, Dec 25, 2025 (UTC+01:00)

Q64697910

Bob haircut with hair clips on both sides (Q64697910): a short hairstyle for women, secured only by hair clips on both sides of the hair (common in 20th-century China): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

The name has no reliable source, but this hairstyle was particularly common in 20th-century China ([2][3] and this). Its characteristic feature is a short, ear-length hairstyle with hair clips on both sides. --Thyj (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It also appeared in the 1974 film "Reconnaissance Across the Yangtze".[4] Thyj (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Thyj There's nothing in https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coiffure_homonyme or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponymous_hairstyle to suggest that the hairstyle is notable, although these two articles are probably Western-biased. I don't think the sources listed above are enough to establish notability, the last one seems to be a fan page. Also they seem to be in Chinese, is there anything relevant that can be found in Thai sources since this seems to be related to a Thai princess? Also this item is currently linked to from Sirindhorn, Princess Royal (Q1884754) (the hairstyle was named after her) and Jiang Dehua (Q137351586). If there's a reliable source for the latter, then it might be enough to establish notability otherwise I suggest you replace hair style / hair length (P8839) on those two items with something more appropriate eg bob cut (Q370366) and then it can be deleted. Piecesofuk (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps a more suitable name could be chosen. Thyj (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the name of this hairstyle, so don't associate it with Sirindhorn. Thyj (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Q122981581

white hole cosmology (Q122981581): Cosmological model in which the observable universe is the interior of a white hole: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This apparently refers to a fringe pseudoscientific theory of cosmology [5]. There are no links to any Wikimedia project. The item was created with reference to Creation Wiki (Q116414222), which is not a reliable source. Mention in Creation Wiki (Q116414222) or RationalWiki (Q6961180) does not imply notability, as expliciticly noted in RationalWiki ID (P7775). The item does link to some scientific papers, but these seem to be different than (and hence not to be conflated with) the fringe creationist pseudoscientific theory. --Charp238 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The concept is legit and represent study in physics domain. Its existence established by article in APS journal. If you feel that this is a "fringe pseudoscientific theory of cosmology" due to existence of unreliable source. You could reframe the description and remove the unreliable source. Why erase the entire item? —Yamato Shiya^{大和 士也} (Talk • Contribs) 08:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

1. Q128585209 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q130216190 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q130216249 (delete | history | links | logs)
4. Q56598954 (delete | history | links | logs)
5. Q55106969 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Non-existent Hungarian double first names, continuation of this request Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2026/01/09#Q128706085
@StarTrekker, Moebeus: Pallor (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Pallor (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment Some of these are listed in other languages like Czech and Portuguese, so I would not support deleting those on the basis that they don't exist in Hungarian. If the names are listed in only Hungarian, then support delete.StarTrekker (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Anna-Mária (Q130216249) is used on Anna-Mária Erdman (Q136612673) (Czech person). Others don't have uses. Samoasambia ✎ 13:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Q128585209 has a Commons category, but I have nominated it for deletion as it is empty. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, if we know for certain that these double names exist in other languages, then they should remain. However, they were only included as Hungarian names (their use is already more limited due to the accents).

But are we sure that the institution of double middle names also exists in Slavic-speaking areas? Isn't it simply a case of someone being called both Anna and Mária, with a hyphen between the two first names? Could someone look up when the Czech name day for "Anna-Mária" is? Pallor (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

People don't generally have hyphens between their given names unless it's a double name, I don't really see why else they would? Does a name need to have a name day in Slavic countries to be a 'real' name?StarTrekker (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

From the first sentence, I can only agree with the phrase "generally": in Romanian, hyphens are often used between family names and first names to indicate that the middle name can be considered a family name or a first name. This does not necessarily mean that either of them is a double name, and in the case of minorities in Romania, this is certainly not the case. The answer to your question in the second sentence is that, of course, in cultures where name days are observed and celebrated, the hyphenated version must also have a name day. If, for example, there are separate name days for Anna and Maria, which are celebrated separately by the persons concerned, then their names are Anna and Maria, not Anna-Maria (to avoid misunderstanding, I would like to clarify here that Annamária, which is very similar to the names in the example, is obviously a separate given name).

Obviously, I am not questioning the combination of the first names Jean-Paul Belmondo or Hans-Dietrich Genscher, but rather the fact that a series of elements containing such name combinations have been created in several languages, which I do not see as substantiated.

I still maintain that there are no hyphenated first names in the Hungarian language, and any element containing such a hyphen should be deleted. The Hungarian set of first names can be verified; all Hungarian first names are listed in a very long, continuously updated list, which does not contain any hyphenated names. Whether they exist in other languages must be substantiated by the creator with sources. I admit that I am not familiar with the nomenclature of all languages, and I sincerely hope that the hundreds of double first names created are based on actual knowledge and sources, not just guesswork. Pallor (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not sure exactly what you mean about the name days. In Sweden we also have name days, but hundreds of thousands of names don't have a day for them, they're still real names. Do you have any evidence to support that names in Slavic countries must have a name day to be a real name? I find that hard to believe.StarTrekker (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I wrote that I am not familiar with the nomenclature of all languages, but I also wrote that in many languages, the hyphen does not create a new name, but rather two separate first names. But let's cut to the chase: please provide the sources you used when processing Slavic first names. There will be no better proof of the existence of the names in question. Pallor (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have sources for all these specific items; 1) because I did not create all of these items, 2) because the ones I did make were made as parallels to well established double names in other languages, which is pretty standard practise. I'm willing to accept the idea that they should be deleted (those I created as well as the other ones), but I'm just expressing that not sure I agree with all your reasonings here. (Related; it seems according to this, that double names do exist in Russia. So at the very least in that country they're not a legal impossibility. Tho maybe they're unusual? Article isn't clear about what makes the name odd.)StarTrekker (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

OK. I myself am not aware of any linguistic sources for Slavic double names.

It seems to me that you have created an entry for every name in which you found a hyphen—or there was no hyphen, but you considered them to belong together—but it has been proven that these names did not exist in at least two languages: Hungarian and Romanian (there may be double names in Romanian, I have no information about this, but it is certain that not all names written with a hyphen are double names). Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility that some double names exist, but sources are needed to support this. If we consider the hyphen to be the most important evidence of the existence of names, we can easily fall into the trap of creating an alternative universe on Wikidata that does not exist in reality, which is obviously not the aim of the project. In light of the above, I maintain my proposal to delete these names. Pallor (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay I just want to make it clear again that I'm not the one who has created every double name or hyphenated name (listed here or otherwise) item. As for those types of names in Hungarian or Romanian, I'm willing to accept your assertion that those types of names don't exist in those languages/cultures, but you have hardly "proven" it, you've made several claims, without sources. Now it may very well be correct, but so far your claims don't have any more sources than anyone else here.StarTrekker (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

In Hungary, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences used to determine the list of first names from which names could be chosen for newborns, but a few years ago, this task was transferred to the government. This list is constantly expanding and is published regularly. The most recent list I found was published in September 2025 and includes the decree number and a list of female and male names. Names that are not on the list cannot be given to newborns, but it is possible to apply for permission to use a name that is not on the list, which may be approved or rejected. If approved, it will be included in the next list, and from then on, anyone can give it to a newborn.

The name "Mária Antónia" is not included in the list, but the names Mária and Antónia are. The names "Mária Anna" and "Anna-Mária" are not included, but the names Mária, Anna, and Annamária are. "Mária Izabella" is not included, but Mária and Izabella are. "Mária Terézia" is not included, but Mária and Terézia are. These statements can be verified on this website:

https://nytud.hu/oldal/utonevjegyzek

Since it is in Hungarian, here is a little help: the first document contains male names (in Hungarian: "Férfinevek"), the second document contains female names (in Hungarian: "Női nevek").

In addition, there are names that can be used by the 13 recognized nationalities in Hungary, which can be given to children by families living here who are Hungarian citizens but not of Hungarian nationality. Lists of these names are always available on the websites of the national minority self-governments, but these are obviously not Hungarian names, although they can be registered in Hungary if the above conditions are met.

So there is a source that supports what I wrote. Pallor (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Well that settles it for Hungarian names (since at least the establishment of this name legislation).StarTrekker (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Q137744546

Lakshmi Narayan Maharana (Q137744546): Indian painter and artist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

LTA 249 again; awaiting action on multiple client projects Bovlb (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Should it be deleted when the page has five interwiki links? (please ping if you have a message I should see)
- Sarrus (c • t) 18:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sarrus All five are under deletion request. That was the "awaiting action on multiple client projects" part of my original message. These pages were all created by a long-term abuser who keeps creating new accounts to evade their global lock. Bovlb (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Ah, you'll await deletion here until local deletions (maybe) are done.
- Sarrus (c • t) 19:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sarrus Right. This entry is a reminder for us to go back and revisit. Otherwise I would just have deleted it. Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

1. Q75724136 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q75724138 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q75737184 (delete | history | links | logs)
4. Q75737186 (delete | history | links | logs)
5. Q75737614 (delete | history | links | logs)
6. Q75737616 (delete | history | links | logs)
7. Q75737617 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

Items created from an import from ThePeerage.com, these persons have been removed from the site since. Can't find a proof they ever existed. Melderick (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The first two cited Burke’s Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage (Q61160654), it looks like the others only cited "e-mail message". Peter James (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

When looking for other items about the same people I found Ben Grey Swanson (Q75737614), Ben Swanson (Q96869991) and Ben Swanson (Q135916561) are all about the same age; with Q75737614 there's only the name and age, but with Q96869991 and Q135916561 there's also the link to St Peter's College (Q2487322). Peter James (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Lucy Grey (Q75724136) seems to exist. She's listed on Prabook (Q25328680) under her married name https://prabook.com/web/lucy.swanson/566168 Piecesofuk (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Q125778485

Before all ages (Q125778485): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Almost no data and unclear purpose. My guess is that the intention was to indicate the birth time and place of Jesus (Jesus Christ (Q302)) according to Russian Orthodox tradition, but there were practically no useful references except "New Testament", which is not specific and probably not even correct. A reference to an actual book would perhaps make it acceptable, but as long as it is not done, it definitely shouldn't be defined like this. Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} talk 15:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep "Before all ages" (sometimes "before all worlds" in English, see English versions of the Nicene Creed (Q17002532)) is part of the Nicene Creed (Q207937), a statement of belief that both the Orthodox and the Catholic church accept (with some small differences that are not relevant here). So the phrase can certainly be sourced and is not specific to the Russian Orthodox at all. In fact, the more general notion of pre-existence of Christ (Q1203161) is very wide-spread among Christian denominations. To that end, I think the three statements you removed from Jesus Christ (Q302) (Special:Diff/2456348011, Special:Diff/2456347965 and Special:Diff/2456347497) should be added back possibly with a stated in (P248) Nicene Creed (Q207937) reference. Warudo (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's still a bit unclear how it's supposed to be used. It was used as qualifier applies to part = Before all ages on place of birth, which does not make sense to me. How age could be a part of place? For other property it's "criterion used". Perhaps it should actually be object of statement has role (P3831) on birth date? MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, what the statement is supposed to say is date of birth (P569)before all ages but, sadly, "before all ages" is not a valid date. So, you're probably right, date of birth (P569)unknown valueobject of statement has role (P3831)Before all ages (Q125778485) is the way to go.

As for place of birth (P19), we need to use applies to part (P518) because there are two births at play here. One is the one that happened before all ages, and the other is Nativity of Jesus (Q51628) which probably happened around 5 BC. For the former, place of birth (P19)unknown value holds but not for the latter for which it is place of birth (P19)Bethlehem (Q5776). Warudo (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Q18506882

San Zeno-San Giuseppe (Q18506882): human settlement in Cassola, Province of Vicenza, Veneto, Italy: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item is a composition of Q1850688 and Q98148534 automatically imported --~2026-49144-6 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It's defined in the census as one place ("centro abitato"). I assume that "Q1850688" is intended to be Q18506881, but most of the sitelinks there are for a place in Costabissara, so I moved the statements about the place in Cassola to a new item San Zeno (Q137858572). Peter James (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe the Geonames and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia sources are reliable sources for defining two small hamlets within an Italian municipality...

Read the Italian Wikipedia:

• https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassola
• https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giuseppe_(Cassola)
• https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Zeno_(Cassola).

In these sources, you can see that San Zeno and San Giuseppe are separate hamlets. Specifically, I'll translate this sentence for you: "Nel 1955 la parte nord del comune di Cassola, allora appartenente al territorio della parrocchia di San Zeno, fu scorporata dando origine alla frazione di San Giuseppe" -> "In 1955, the northern part of the municipality of Cassola, then belonging to the parish of San Zeno, was separated, giving rise to the hamlet of San Giuseppe".

I live near those places and I can confirm that there is not a single town called "San Zeno-San Giuseppe". Adfc (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Q97309629

Make Lists, Not War (Q97309629): website that aggregates best-of lists: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non-notable blog that hosts lists of various things, mostly related to arts and culture. No coverage in serious sources, there's no evidence that author of blog is expert in these areas. The blog aggregates information from various sources without assessing its correctness, so it should not be considered reliable source. It is used a lot to reference statements on artwork items; the query User:MSDN.WhiteKnight/Query_references returns over 3000 uses, for example, movement statement on Sunflowers (Q157541). All these references seems to be mass imported by creator, likely the promotion of this blog. In most cases, the references could be replaced by better sources, such as museum websites or art history books. Even if this blog is the only source available, it does not require having an item, as it's also referenced via reference URL property. So i think it could be deleted, despite numerous usage. Creator: @User:Qono. --MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@MSDN.WhiteKnight: that site is a source of bad information. I use the item for the constraint violation on stated in (P248). Clean up is not that easy. In some cases it's just removing the reference, in other cases the whole statement. these edits should be reverted. Not sure if https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/OR/67e2b8ccec3 is going to work again. Multichill (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Delete promotional, fails WD:N IntensionalLogician (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Q104693251

Edinburgh city centre (Q104693251): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable without any sitelinks, identifiers or uses. All cities have centres. Before enwiki was redirected it was a stub [6] --Tæppa (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It exists and is notable, and other British cities of similar size have items for city centres; it's just that New Town (Q590710) and Old Town (Q591133) are usually linked to. Peter James (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I count 23 instances of central business district (Q738570) and 5 of city center (Q1468524) [7], although they don't seem to be distinguished or are instances of both on Newcastle City Centre (Q7017379) and Wrexham City Centre (Q8038127). As WD:N1 and WD:N3 aren't met, I don't see how Edinburgh city centre (Q104693251) in it's present state can be a "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" as all mentions of it are semantically describing the geographic centre of Edinburgh, which Edinburgh (Q23436) (or it's named suburbs) would describe if the various administrative areas were split off. Tæppa (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep--Ezzex (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Q109496759

Anne Clin (Q109496759): Wikimedian: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is an item about a living person. This person reported to me that they would like this item to be deleted. --YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

 Keep There are no personal details on the item and according to Wikipedia she's a recent Wikimedia Laureate Piecesofuk (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @YULdigitalpreservation I would be better that she do a demand to the Wikidata:Oversight. Become a Wikimedia laureate did made her notable here as Piecesofuk says. Even if the goal is separate her account from her name, this is a oversight job. Fralambert (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Q66477411

Italy (Q66477411): constituency of the European Parliament: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

For EU elections, Italy is, and has always been, divided into 5 constituencies:

• Central Italy (Q3677909): constituency of the European Parliament;
• Italian Islands (Q3677910): constituency of the European Parliament;
• Southern Italy (Q3677912): constituency of the European Parliament;
• North-West Italy (Q3677915): constituency of the European Parliament;
• North-East Italy (Q3677916): constituency of the European Parliament.

Italy in itself is not a constituency of the European Parliament.

Best regards, Albgr03 (talk). 08:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This should be fixed now.

Best regards, Albgr03 (talk). 12:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is the "collegio unico nazionale" mentioned in it:Elezioni europee del 2024 in Italia and other articles. Peter James (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You might be right, although it seems to refer to the electoral system in use. I also wonder if it's notable enough to warrant an entity. Best regards, Albgr03 (talk). 10:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Q112947279

organ of the catholic church of St Albertus Magnus, Cologne (Q112947279): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Lack of notability --MeAmME (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Created a commons category Granpar (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Comment @Granpar Commons categories don't establish notability, but I'm not sur of ‎Organ Index ID (P13889). It's a wiki but seem well documented. Another advice would be welcome. Fralambert (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Then delete all 5,374 items with a P13889 statement. Too many items are excluded here, and this makes Wikidata itself unnotable. Granpar (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Q134726858

Du bist Halle (Q134726858): Local News Blog for Halle (Saale): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Notability not shown Gymnicus (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Structural need for Q1389754 which is clearly notable Granpar (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

There is absolutely no structural need. Hence the question: Have you even checked that statement? The statement Du bist Halle (Q134726858)parent organization or unit (P749)Media Authority of Saxony-Anhalt (Q1389754) is, in my view, complete nonsense. Although I certainly understand why it was added. The Media Authority of Saxony-Anhalt is the same for Du bist Halle as it is for Radio SAW. It is the regulatory authority. The German translation “Aufsichtsbehörde” is an alias of the property parent organization or unit (P749) and that is why the statement was added. And before you bring this up, the statement Du bist Halle (Q134726858)editor-in-chief (P5769)Daniel Baumann (Q60711084) is unsubstantiated and nowhere can it be found that the notable person Daniel Baumann was the editor-in-chief of Du bist Halle. --Gymnicus (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Q121029318

Q121029318: leaf that a root vegetable grows during the first summer: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item not adequately justified. No references. Unclear label and description. Alexander Abair (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

1) WD:N criterion 1. 2) This is a local term which not necessarily has an analogue in English. Wikidata does not restict the creation of items for terms like this. --Wolverène (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S. After a little research, I think that Q121029318 may be merged into Q126484886. If "naatti" means leaves of root vegetables (en:wikt:naatti says 'the above ground part of a root vegetable'), it is pretty same to what I would call ru:ботва in my native Russian. But Finnish "naatti" may mean not just leaves but also inflorescences and fruits, so I am not 100% sure.
Unclear label and description. -- I am not the best in formulating, but I would enter the label 'top', the description 'above-ground part of a root vegetable', and the alias 'root vegetable leaves'. --Wolverène (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Q131369571

George Lyton Rockwell (Q131369571): 1839 - 1910: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Non notable. Not the fault of the creator, this was made as a valid #3 claim to notability as the father of a notable person. However, this was actually a mistake repeated by several geneology sites - Doc Rockwell's father was not this man, but George Scott Rockwell, a different guy (who there is some sourcing abt), as written about in the biography (American Fuehrer (Q133281592)) of Rockwell's much more infamous son. No reliable primary or secondary source says a "George Lyton Rockwell" is Doc Rockwell's father. This is afaik a totally non-notable person. I do not believe this guy has any notable relatives. The identifiers, as far as I know, do not evidence notability. --PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

 Question @PARAKANYAA Can you link to where the discussion about this being a mistake is? I don't doubt it, but It would be helpful to verify. Assuming this is true, presumably his father Joel Rockwell (Q131369573) should also be deleted? IntensionalLogican (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@IntensionalLogican It's verified in the enwiki article for George Lincoln Rockwell and any book on the subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Q131363032

Thae Su Nyein (Q131363032): Burmese model and beauty pageant contestant: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable, xwiki spam, sitelinks pending delete. Aqurs1 (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

If the existing sitelinks are deleted I would agree, but since they exist as of now we should wait. Sjö (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Q2178363

Maximilian Götzen (Q2178363): Mexican businessman and pretender to the throne of the Empire of Mexico: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Genealogical hoax. The English Wikipedia biography was deleted after an AfD consensus (hoax/non-notable). Claims of headship of the House of Iturbide are false per primary archival records from the Catholic University of America (JSTOR). --Mkeller87 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

All linked articles must be deleted first from their respective Wikipedia sites. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 06:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Wait per Yamato IntensionalLogican (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Q139505417

Sterfry (Q139505417): American electronic music and jazz artist, saxophonist, and producer from Nashville, Tennessee: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion) Non-notable from shallow Google search, additionally WD:SELF @Sterfryy --Anywaydun (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Subject has received coverage in FUXWITHIT (EDM press), has been featured on Noisia/Vision Radio, and has multiple documented releases on Bandcamp/Spotify. References are being added directly to the item. Happy to assist with sourcing. Sterfryy (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I've added a few entries. Could you please add more pages to

described at URL? Pages from independent media outlets are of particular interest. Granpar (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Q139560701

John Figueiredo (Q139560701): American entrepreneur, founder of SISU Extracts and Plaito: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not notable Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 06:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Subject meets Wikidata:Notability criterion 2 ("can be described using serious and publicly available references"). Independent third-party coverage:

• BusinessWire — Left Coast Ventures Announces Acquisition of Sisu Extracts (March 2020)
• Cannabis Business Times — coverage of the same acquisition
• MG Magazine — "SISU Extracts: Turning Trim Into Gold"
• Green Market Report — Subversive SPAC Forms The Parent Company with Jay-Z & Roc Nation
• Benzinga — The Parent Company Divests Wholesale Cannabis Extraction Division (2022)
• RWS Magazine — Plaito's AI Education Platform To Reach 1M Downloads

Subject is co-founder of SISU Extracts, which became part of the publicly-traded TPCO Holding Corp via the Subversive Capital SPAC (NEO: GRAMF / OTCMKTS: GRAMF). He is also Lundquist College of Business Forty Under 40 Advisory Board recipient at the w:University of Oregon. The COI is disclosed transparently on my user page per w:WP:COI guidance. I will be adding these references as P854 source statements on the existing claims to address sourcing concerns. Happy to defer to community judgment on whether additional structural improvements are needed before keeping. Jfigueir (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Q12688215

Irmen (Q12688215): village in the Atyrau region, Kazakhstan: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Wikidata ID of an article in Malay, article is a mystification, such "village in Kazakhstan" cannot be found on any map or in any source. The closest one is Verkhnaya Irmen (Upper Irmen, on Irmen River) in Novosibirsk Oblast, Russia. --Красный (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Source is possibly https://www.geonames.org/453557/irmen.html, which is based on https://geonames.nga.mil/geon-ags/rest/services/RESEARCH/GIS_OUTPUT/MapServer/0/query?outFields=*&where=ufi+%3D+-3772974 and it's included in a list in kk:Жаңаталап ауылдық округі (Атырау облысы)#Сипаттамасы. Peter James (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Q139622268

Katarzyna Baranowska (Q139622268): Polish journalist, academic lecturer, entrepreneur, author, podcaster and SEO expert: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Recreation of Q138479482, Q138479472. Dorades (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep

Keep. Both Q138479482 and Q138479472 were empty items deleted in February 2026 for lack of content — one had no references, the other was literally empty with a single anonymous contributor. This item (Q139622268) is entirely different: it is a well-sourced entry for a notable Polish SEO specialist with independent references including Wirtualne Media (national press), Majestic Blog (international tool), semKRK Hall of Fame, two published books with ISBN at Helion/Onepress publisher, a record at the National Library of Poland, and an academic affiliation at the University of Wrocław. This is not a recreation of deleted items — it is a new, properly documented entry that meets Wikidata notability criteria. I am the subject of this item. Thank You.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katarzyna Baranowska (talk • contribs) at 04:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC).

 Keep VIAF-, NUKAT- and PLWABN-ID Granpar (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that this item is a second recreation of an item (same subject, just more links), which in its second iteration and this iteration are created by the same author, is already warranting deletion. To restore deleted items, the standard practice is to contact the deleting admin, or through RFU posted in WD:AN, more information.

The fact that this item is created under COI and deviates from community practice.

Now the identifiers: VIAF record contained only 1 related graph (NUKAT), NUKAT only lists 2 publications, which created recently, and after looking at the references (the store links) provided by the subject, could be proven non notable through low readerships. ORCID ID only contains self proclaimed works, and usage of ORCID for a "SEO expert" is already questionable. Polands National Library authority data archive stated that the record was created quite recently, December 2025. The recency of the records altogether with the fact that those records only contain (recent) works with low readership, already lower the notability factor.

References: Lets bring what the owner of the item said. Wirtualne Media (national press) the article were categorized as advertorial news, Majestic Blog (international tool), the article is not published by a known journalistic company, and furthermore, a blog. semKRK Hall of Fame is not indicating any notability, its a list of speakers and CEOs. academic affiliation is not bringing anything academic to the table, the reference given was only a time table for lecture schedule with subject name listed.

I dont have time to check all links provided, but from the pattern (such as usage of company blogs like Majestic or Devagroup, with no notable editorial processes, and more similar to advertising among companies), I could see the "attempted presence", but it fails any notability. The best I could say that the author spamming links to the item CMIIW, some even with no mention of the subject at all.

Sorry for bad English, I bombarded my browser with tabs checking everything, and trying to make this as concise as I could. Please do rechecks my finding, I might missed something.

I think its best to also tag the deleting admin for the first and second iteration of the item creation, cc @EPIC. Thank you.Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 14:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the notability here as well. But ultimately I will leave this decision to another admin. EPIC (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply to Yamato~kun:

Thank you for your detailed review. I would like to address your points respectfully.

Regarding the recreation concern: I acknowledge that my first attempt to create this item was made hastily, without fully understanding Wikidata's notability policies. I take responsibility for that. This current item (Q139622268) was created after careful study of the guidelines, with proper independent references. I understand the concern, but I ask you to evaluate it on its own merits rather than its history.

Regarding the Wirtualne Media article: This is NOT an advertorial. It is published in the editorial section "Reklama" — a standard department covering personnel news in the Polish advertising industry. The author "bg" is a Wirtualne Media journalist. Advertorials on Wirtualne Media are clearly marked as "materiał sponsorowany" — this article has no such marking.

Regarding VIAF, NUKAT and National Library records being recent: These identifiers exist because my co-authored book SEO dla małych i startujących sklepów internetowych (Helion/Onepress) was published in late November 2025. The recency of the library records directly reflects the recency of the publication — not an attempt to manufacture notability. NUKAT and the National Library of Poland catalogue books based on their own acquisition processes, independently of the author.

Regarding the academic affiliation: The University of Wrocław website and the Institute's page are not updated regularly — this is a known characteristic of Polish academic institution websites. The reference I provided (the lecture schedule PDF) was the best available public document confirming the affiliation at the time of editing.

Regarding Majestic Blog: Majestic is one of the most authoritative SEO tools globally, used by professionals in over 100 countries. Their blog features interviews with recognized industry experts — being invited for an interview is itself an indicator of recognition in the field.

I am not trying to spam this item or manufacture presence. I am the subject of this item and I am trying to represent myself accurately and according to Wikidata standards. I welcome any guidance on how to improve the item further.

---- Katarzyna Baranowska (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Still, looking at the links you provided, I doubt the notability. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Yamato~kun for your detailed review, it helped me better understand Wikidata's notability standards and improve the item.

I would like to address the closing admin directly with the core argument.

The fundamental idea of Wikidata is to collect verifiable facts confirmed by independent sources. This is exactly what this item provides. The notability here is not based on fame or self-promotion, it is based on 15 years of documented, independently verifiable professional activity:

- National Library of Poland independently catalogued my works

- VIAF and NUKAT independently index my publications

- Helion/Onepress - one of Poland's largest publishers - independently published my book

- Wirtualne Media - national press - independently reported on my career move in 2016

- University of Wrocław independently lists me as a lecturer in their official schedule

- semKRK - Poland's largest SEM conference - independently recognized me in their Hall of Fame and appointed me Head Judge of the SEO category in 2024 and 2026

Each of these facts is independently verifiable. This is precisely what Wikidata exists to document.

I respectfully ask the admin to evaluate this item based on its documented merits.

---- Katarzyna Baranowska (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep The old entry should not be used as a criterion of notability. Just because someone didn't know how to add the item properly, so it was deleted, should not be a factor to delete the notable person from Wikidata.

There is more than enough data in the entry to prove the item is notable. There are items (about living persons) that have 1/5 of this information, and no one questions their notability.

VIAF, NUKAT, PLWABN identefiers. She is a co-author of a book ISBN 978-83-289-2262-4 reference: national library.

There is more than enough to consider this entry as notable. We should not penalize someone because she made a mistake while learning. Jcubic (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete per Yamato. Its a recreation of a deleted item and should follow standard recreation procedure. While I would typically lean keep due to the identifiers, after reading through them, it seems like this is clearly manufactured notability for SEO purposes, the existence of the book does not sway me. IntensionalLogican (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly a bias against SEO and marketing that I also see on Polish Wikipedia. A lot of Wikipedians vote to delete notable entries because the subject is related to SEO and marketing (even when notable and not spam). This violates the main filar of Wikimedia projects, neutrality.

The mistake of not following "standard recreation procedure" should not be a factor of deletion either. "Procedures" and "rules" like this are the reason why people never come back to Wikipedia after they hit the wall. I know that Wikidata is not Wikipedia, but I see a common pattern here. Jcubic (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

People who are here for self-promotion don't come back. They are only here to promote themselves, their companies, books etc. I wonder why you think it is ok to just repeat an action that is against the rules and not wanted by the community. --Dorades (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you think that the current page is against the rules. Look at it objectively and in a neutral way as a standalone entry. I didn't see the first page, but it was probably low-effort with missing data. Entries that qualify for express deletion as an editing experiment or spam. This is not repeating the same action. This entry is valuable and not spam or low-effort like that first page.

It may violate the procedure of recreation of deleted pages, but this is some rule hidden deeply in Wikidata. That probably only veterans know. I didn't know such rules existed, and I've been editing Wikidata for a long time. Maybe it should be more prominent and easier to find.

Deleting this entry will create a precedent to never again add any person or company related to marketing and SEO. Or never allow creating an entry about yourself. There is a discussion about this right now, and I'm against that. Jcubic (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to be a veteran editor to see why this item and the course of action is problematic. There is Wikidata:What Wikidata is not which states: "place for self-promotion, or advertising/marketing". There is also an essay (which is widely accepted) linked from the top of RfD: Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion where it is unambiguously said that recreation of a deleted item is not the way forward.

Deleting this entry will create a precedent to never again add any person or company related to marketing and SEO. That is not true, as long as an item fulfills WD:N, it will be kept. Of course there are items on Wikidata related to SEO, marketing etc. which are notable and undisputed. --Dorades (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the person broke the rules of recreation of the article. Which is not the rule, but an essay. But ok.

But this is not a valid request for deletion. This is penalizing newcomers for breaking the rule that is hidden deeply in the Wikidata namespace. Not posting on his discussion page and showing him(her) that what he(she) did was wrong and broke the rule (an essay). But instead of requesting to delete his(her) work. This is why a lot of Wikimedia projects feel hostile to newcomers. This is the main thing the Wikimedia Foundation wants to change now. And it's the thing we would like to change in Polish Wikipedia as well (lead by Wikimedia Polska). The community is hostile to people that don't know their way around yet. They don't communicate. They delete someone's work without any information why.

I hope that the admin who will read this discussion, and decide, will have common sense and see how ridiculous this request is.

The same as your report to the admin, BTW. You're breaking the rules here, by making admins more work, by creating invalid reports. Instead of contacting the person directly and pointing out their mistake, and teaching them what the rules are (even if they are essays and not actually rules).

I would understand if the person did this multiple times. His(her) entries were deleted, and he(she) recreated them again. Multiple violations of the rules need action. But even then, when this was detected for the first time, he(she) should be informed about the fact that what they did was wrong. On his discussion page. Not on a public forum. Jcubic (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata rules cited by @Dorades is community consensus. Wikimedia projects moved or changed by consensus. This what shaped Wikidata. What @Dorades is not wrong per se, they only brought up items and made them under scrutiny. And if you see the amount of comment, you might see that there are consensus that the item might not be necessarily notable. As for “Wikimedia project is hostile….” I have differing opinion but mine might not matter much here. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 09:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata pages cited by @Dorades: are not rules. Read the warning at the top:

This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some Wikidata contributors, but may not have wide support. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.

If there were rules, it would be easier to find them. Citing them as an argument to delete a notable entry is ridiculous. There are a lot of things hidden in Wikimedia projects. Expecting that a newcomer will know this hidden essay that a person who has 15 10 years of experience knows is also ridiculous.

Consensus means that there is an agreement. Not that someone writes an essay, and some people agree. If there were a consensus on those ideas, they would become rules and be more prominent on the website. Jcubic (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For reasons given here, I am not going to continue the discussion with this specific user. --Dorades (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep There's an entry in VIAF, NUKAT, PLWABN, so yes we can keep it. This is a no brainer. Wikidata is the facto an authority file. Which is reference in VIAF. Those entries are super helpful for other project when we source articles, when we conduct analytics, etc. There's "data" in this project, it's no "pedia". This item should had not be deleted in the first place. --Deansfa (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment indeed it has records in authority files, yet Wikidata is not a "mirror" for them, we "selectively choose" records in them, where using consensus, we look the recognizability of the subject in its records i.e. whether what the records stated as "authors" in those "authority" files are valid for Wikidata. Authority files might index other databases too, where some of them could be generated by user, such as ORCID, plus they also might index other advertorials, etc. Before entering Wikidata, they should be scrutinized first, otherwise we are just mirroring all of them.

Those entries are super helpful for other project when we source articles, when we conduct analytics, etc - this is interesting, I understand Wikidata as tertiary data source, which often flagged as "should not be cited but function as a bridge to citable (secondary) data sources". I understand the notion of reusability through analytics, but its new for me that Wikidata could be used as source for article (I assume its for Wikipedia)?. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Q132892024

generated by (Q132892024): what software tool was used to generate this value: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Not a property Yirba (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

cc @Mykhal could you help clarify what the item used for? Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 10:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It was intended for stating what software was used for generation of structural identifiers like SMILES (even for "canonical" ones, not going into more details for now), which can be different for the same compound. Even though the property does not exist yet (which i realized shortly after item creation), i think it might be useful for some other properties which might be created in near future. Maybe there's already some existing similar one, which I was not able to identify. --Mykhal (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

… see current Q139579369 ref comments. --Mykhal (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request

1. Q139764658 (delete | history | links | logs)
2. Q139764740 (delete | history | links | logs)
3. Q139764379 (delete | history | links | logs) (all on TAB)

non-notable/clearly promotional. Icodense (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Q139764379 clear notable https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P214 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P227 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P13049 Structural need for [8]

Q139764658 Structural need for Q139764379

Q139764740 Structural need for Q139764379

 Keep Granpar (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Mario André Brückner (Q139764379) seem notable, but I don't understand how it fulfil a structural need for the two other. Fralambert (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The founder P112 of Q139764658 was Q139764379

The presenter P371 of Q139764740 is Q139764379 Granpar (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Structural need is the other way around, Q139764379 won't loose it if those two are deleted. Fralambert (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P9549 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P108 in Q139764379 Granpar (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Those are not sourced in Mario André Brückner (Q139764379). Fralambert (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

•  Delete, WD:SELF. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  The essay Wikidata:Self-promotion article does not constitute reasons for deletion. A deletion request must be justified only by Wikidata:Notability Granpar (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep Mario André Brückner (Q139764379) clearly promotional but does meet WD:N per Granpar. IntensionalLogician (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Bulk deletion request Sceneweb artists

219 items containing only instance of (P31) → human (Q5) and a single external identifier (Sceneweb artist ID (P10298)), without other statements. These appear to be incomplete mass-import test items with no independent usefulness in their current state. Items were created by @Elisabeth Borud Leinslie @Feotanja and @Raniapahn 1Veertje (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Similar concerns regarding minimal Sceneweb imports were previously discussed at User talk:Raniapahn and the administrators' noticeboard in March 2024.1Veertje (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep They should be updated not deleted. The first couple I checked were clearly identifiable from the external ID Piecesofuk (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

ːI merged Q136457233 to Q130813362, Q124129265 to Q44529412, and Q129065512 (not in the deletion request, but in the query) to Q124340389. Others can be improved; I added identifiers to Q131437477. Peter James (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that some of these items can be identified or improved does not address the underlying issue. Items should not be mass-created as near-empty external-ID containers with only instance of (P31) and Sceneweb artist ID (P10298), leaving it to other editors to determine whether they are notable, merge duplicates, add basic statements, or make them useful. Similar concerns regarding this Sceneweb import workflow were already raised in 2024, including at User talk:Raniapahn and the administrators' noticeboard. The creators of these items should have done this curation before creating new items, not after a deletion request. 21:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I don feel that it's more a WD:AN mather that a RfD one. Sceneweb artist ID (P10298) does seem to establish notability. Added the information in it for Han Bin (Q124382452), while not have many thing, it will help to find duplicate, it any. At this stade, ad since the RfD is not curated, I'm kind in the mood to close it as not done. Fralambert (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Merged Q136811399 wit Johan Jensen (Q133848657) and Q133848746 to Carl Johan Fröberg (Q5746304). Completed all the 1st batch. Fralambert (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure about Tiril Marie Olsen (Q110878834) and Tiril Marie Olsen (Q123908081), same person? Fralambert (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The SceneWeb ID contains entries for people like proper actors, to audio guys, make up people, and all kinds of supporting roles. Probably not a good idea to treat them all as the same. If you can find people on other bases like IMDB that might give some other indication that they are notable, otherwise there's probably plenty of entries that can be deleted. I just think deletion should be done on a one-by-one basis here, to either extend the items or delete them. Infrastruktur (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah and entry are related to the plays in which they have performed. So some may fulfill a structural need. Fralambert (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ernest Theodor Amadeus (Q124299727) is American according to https://sceneweb.no/nb/artist/18303/Ernest_Theodor%20Amadeus, but that page links to https://sceneweb.no/nb/production/21546/N%C3%B8tteknekkeren where it's clear that this is the German author E. T. A. Hoffmann (Q150471). Peter James (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Q108059718

Star Trek planet (Q108059718): planet appearing in the Star Trek universe: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Merge with fictional planet (Q2775969) Trade (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Keep - Not the same but connected by subclass of (P279). Arancycn (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons as to why a planet in Star Trek is somehow fundamentally different from the generic concept of fictional planets? What exactly is the benefit of arbitrarily splitting them like this? Trade (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete wrong onthology. takes place in fictional universe (P1434):Star Trek universe (Q18043309) should be enough. Fralambert (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Per @Fralambert Sonal ^(Talk) 15:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

 Question I would support a  Merge, but out of curiosity, what are the conditions for when a fictional class gets its own item? This type of ontology issue seems to appear quite frequently, including all over the place in things related to Tolkien's legendarium (Q81738), for example Middle-earth race (Q989255), Middle-earth locality (Q20671864), Middle-earth people (Q17412916), and Star Wars (Q462) ex. astronomical location from the Star Wars universe (Q108059912), Star Wars location (Q108059698), Star Wars planet (Q108059870) are all of these also out of ontology? Is it a matter of the notability of the individual class? Is there a wikidata fictional ontology best practices list one can reference? IntensionalLogican (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fictional ontology is hard, and I'm not aware of any established rules for how it should be handled on Wikidata. Entirely fictional universes like Middle-earth are relatively easy, as they're entirely isolated from the real world. Where things get really hairy is speculative fiction works and alternate history works which attribute new properties and connections to real entities - for instance, consider the absolute mess of entities that would be needed to model the history of The Guns of the South (Q7738533). Omphalographer (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep I added some statements Q108059718#P1963 for properties for this type to show how it could be useful for setting appropriate properties and values for objects of the class. I also added the Wikimedia Category links. This connects 6 different languages of wikis to the topic. I set it as a subclass of representation for now to accommodate Earth and other planets, but a narrower class might be suitable. Linking the planet classification appears to be a useful way to categorize the planets. This might allow simpler queries such as instance of Star Trek class E planet that is homeworld to X or has a resource, or taxon, or whatever. These methods might be transferable to other series where a combination of real-world analogs and fictional entities come into play. AHIOH (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Q130333187

Fernando Arrieta (Q130333187): Argentinian entrepreneur and journalist

Request deletion or administrator review of this duplicate/conflated person item.

Reason: Q130333187 overlaps with the canonical item Fernando Arrieta (Q139956181): Argentinian entrepreneur and journalist for Fernando Arrieta: both use fernandoarrieta.org as official website and share LinkedIn/Instagram identifiers. The canonical item Q139956181 has now been aligned with the official website and ORCID iD P496 0009-0005-1528-0687. Q130333187 carries a different ORCID iD (0009-0002-9310-8979) and mixed/older social identifiers, so an automatic merge would import conflicting identifiers into the canonical item. I am the person represented by the canonical item and request deletion of the duplicate/conflated item, or administrator guidance on cleanup/merge without importing the wrong ORCID/social identifiers. Creator appears to be User:Structureddata. --Ferar27 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 4 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Merge for now. Although its not clear to me that Fernando Arrieta (Q139956181) meets WD:N either, there is maybe a weak structural argument for the newspapers, but I am highly suspect of the ORCID that just contains social links and no research. IntensionalLogican (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Q140032587

Halkalı (Q140032587): quarter in Küçükçekmece, Istanbul, Turkey: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item incorrectly generated by bot Sadrettin (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

It was duplicated from Q6072084 as some sitelinks had to be moved; statements had been left on both items that only apply to one, so I removed them. Peter James (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Q25305116

Wild number (Q25305116): proposed number sequence: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Per the AfD on enwiki, which will undoubtedly be finished by the time a WD admin deals with this request, "wild number" is not a "clearly identifiable conceptual entity", as . the novelist did not define it. Various mathematicians have tried to define rules that would provide the sequence from the novel, but none have succeeded. DS (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If something isn't defined within a creative work that doesn't mean it isn't defined in reality as a thing that exists in a creative work, being undefined just becomes one of its qualities. Especially if mathematicians have tried to figure it out. DogsRNice (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

"It is defined as being undefined"? Really? DS (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably not the best wording for that, sorry. You're saying it's not an identifiable conceptual entity because it wasn't properly defined by the author. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's still a concept that exists. DogsRNice (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep I think its an edge case that could go either way in terms of WD:N, but I lean towards notable. As a fictional mathematical concept (Q126473023) its certainly one of the better and more notable instances we have. They have two OEIS entries: A145833 and A058883 and if the author is to be believed in The Wild Number Problem fact or fiction?, the fictional numbers in OIES have been of interest to mathematicians and they are the namesake of a real definition from Lagarias 2005 (I am aware these are Arxiv papers and thus WD:N suffers, but don't think this is necessarily disqualifying). IntensionalLogician (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added the primary OEIS identifier and a few other statements to the entity. Omphalographer (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Some items created by User:重庆轨交18

Extended content

Q137286270: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Xiajia Ba (Q131522021): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Q131522017: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Lushan Bei (Q131522052): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Zhongyang Gongyuan Nan (Q126722176): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Cuining Road (Q136736026): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Q131522080: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) Taoyuan Gongyuan (Q131522095): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs) all on TAB

These items look like to be associated with planned routes of the Chongqing Rail Transit. However, the names of these items (both Chinese and English) seem to be entirely made up (except Q137286270, its Chinese "野猫溪" has been mentioned in an environment report (p56)), and no information about the precise locations of these stations can be found.Benteds (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Q21864655

Q21864655: watercourse in Austria: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Watercourse "Oberhauserbach" does not exist in this region - not found in GIS Styria nor in O'SM --TheRunnerUp (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

TheRunnerUp, please request and process the deletion of the cebwiki article before proceeding with WD RFD. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Could this waterway be the one being referred to? [9] Granpar (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Non this waterway is called Kerschlingbach. --TheRunnerUp (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There is false precision in the coordinates; it says to an arcsecond, but is actually an arcminute. There is an alternative name, Dürren Bach, so this is probably the same as Dürrenbach (Q101471890), if there is not a watercourse called Oberhauserbach in that area. Peter James (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Q139996258

Bluebird Foundation (Q139996258): international non-profit organization based in the United States: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Cross-wiki spam, not notable. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Wait deletion of wiki articles. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Q138651761

• Samuel Williams (Q138651761): American singer-songwriter: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)
• Samuel Williams (Q139769103): American singer-songwriter: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Cross-wiki spam, not notable. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

 Wait for deletion of articles. Yamato~kun (Talk • Contribs) 08:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Q64632915

Marie-Paule Dondelinger (Q64632915): Luxembourgish politician: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Please have a look at this item. In ticket:2026061110004764 WMF kindly asked the community for our opinion. I expanded it and added a few sources, but we should still make a decision. Personally, I am in favour of the person's notability. Bencemac (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Ameisenigel because we already had a RfD last year. Bencemac (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep seems like a structural need for Pirate Party Luxembourg (Q3079953) IntensionalLogician (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• VD Meh, he's not even that notable. Might as well respect his wish. It probably does more good to him than keeping this does to Wikidata--Trade (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"In ticket:2026061110004764 WMF kindly asked the community for our opinion"—Opinion on what? The ticket is not visible to most members of the community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

As this is a deletion discussion, whether the concept should be deleted or kept based on our (the community's) assessment. Bencemac (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It is implied that the proposed reason for deletion, which is not otherwise stated, is given in the ticket. Otherwise, why else is the ticket linked? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The ticket was linked so that the other VRT agents can read it more easily. As I explained before, the community was asked to assess the notability of the concept because WMF would like to know our opinion. They have their reasons, but I think we are capable of deciding whether to keep or delete it ourselves, do not you agree? Bencemac (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability was not mentioned as a reason for proposing the deletion. You only mentioned it in the context of your "keep" !vote.

And no, I do not agree we should consider a request whose reason is not explained by those making or relaying it.

If I were to propose the deletion of an item without giving any rationale, I would expect that proposal to be rejected without further discussion.

We should be told why the WMF have asked us to examine this item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Pigsonthewing - I won't dive into the "why" just now, but let me just link this message here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q64632915#c-~2026-34934-21-20260614082900-Remove_page for some extra context to this particular item. And it's always worth bearing in mind the possibility that when WMF Legal shows up, legal proceedings might be afoot (or imminent).

Courteous, well-considered (and well-articulated) debates over whether to keep or remove content are always a good idea generally (and if they result in decisions to keep content, they can be appreciated by lawyers that can use them to demonstrate the virtues of the community's self-governance, when sued or investigated).

As is long-established now, there is a balance to be struck between the public interest and the private interests of individuals, and that's something the community is well-placed to consider and optimize for, as I've explained in other settings (e.g., here). PBradley-WMF (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

In that, an anonymous person who may or may not be the subject, or acting at their instigation, says [according to Google Translate]:

The person in question has not been politically active for some time and is no longer a member of the Pirate Party ... Since this concerns a private individual without any current political or public function, I ask the responsible administrators to delete the entry in compliance with data protection regulations.

That certainly adds some clarity to WMF's request, while it is clear that there is more that is not being said.

I agree that debates should be courteous, well-considered (and well-articulated). They cannot be well-considered without the kind of clarity I have requested being articulated, well or otherwise; saying why an item is proposed for deletion is indeed a courtesy we expect to be shown to those invited to such discussion.

Absent any other rationale, I say Keep, on the basis that the notability caused by the subject's activity as a senior figure in a political party does not dissipate once they retire from that activity (even if it did, it would take much longer than in this case); and that the "data protection regulations" to which the anonymous poster refers do not appear to apply to figures with a public political profile; nor apparently to a United States-hosted service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• She is notable because she is mentioned on RTL and LeQuotidien which are undoubtedly reliable local news sources. --Wolverène (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

 Comment the sources only mentioned the subject's participation in Pirate Party, and then their resignation. I could not find any substantial coverage outside that: such as public work, public activities, public contributions. If we want to keep it due to public good, I only see limited public merit in the item. If in the future the subject hold public office, create a major coverage, has more documented public life, perhaps it could be undeleted. For now, I am more leaning towards  Delete. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 16:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What part of WD:N requires "public work, public activities, public contributions"?

That said "co-speaker of the Pirate Party and ... member of the executive committee" [10] certainly implies that that bar is met; as does "2 new co-chairs for Pirate Partei - The role will be shared by Starsky Flor and Marie-Paule Dondelinger... The two successors will also stand as candidates in the European elections" [11]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your response. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 06:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not agree. WD:N criterion 2 does not require major coverage or a documented public life. She is most probably not notable on Wikipedia (in English, French, even in Luxembourgish...) but on Wikidata we usually feel fine towards political party members who have moderate coverage and enjoy something more than literally a single mention. --Wolverène (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yamato Shiya • (Hello!) 06:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There is Q64632915#P3602, but votes were for the electoral list (Q355844) so only the parties or lists are linked from the election item, and we don't have items that list the members for most of them. Peter James (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

 Keep, not Wikipedia notable but passes WD:N 2 and is a structural need for the pirate party item. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Are the values with preferred rank in Q3079953#P488 still correct? There are no references. Peter James (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140067672

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Plaza (Santiago) (Q140067672): square in Santiago, Chile: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This was created due to confusion. There is no plaza (square) with this name at that location. The site is a park called "Cerro Navidad" (see) which has several monuments and one of them is Atatürk's. There was a misunderstanding that, in addition to the monument (which consists only of an effigy with an inscription), there was also a square with the same name, but that is not true and the monument already has its own item Q140051725. The monument was erected within Cerro Navidad park and that's it, just the monument. --Regioncalifornia (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

 Wait, there are currently two language versions with articles on the subject—whether correct or not.

זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Q94096405

André Cornil (Q94096405): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No information beyond the name, so there is no way to know who this is actually meant to be. Andre Engels (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

https://archives.africamuseum.be/agents/people/404 and https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0180400/bio/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm, the same person but different dates of death (1974 and 1993) so I'm not sure which is correct. Peter James (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Q139599135

Pharmacies BENU SA (Q139599135): Swiss pharmacy chain: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplicate of BENU (Q62562792), @Benu-switzerland, VIGNERON:. Similar problem to the now deleted BENU (Q123669148). --Kaloan-koko (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Merge into BENU (Q62562792) (assuming this isn't supposed to be a specific subsidiary, which from a quick scan it doesn't look like). IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140394773

Samuel Kocanda (Q140394773): Czech civil servant: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-advertisement, recreation of a previously two-time deleted entry through alt-accounts of the person in question, see most recent deletion and associated RfD of Q139908360. --Hieremias (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Wait, As long as the images and the category on Commons have not been deleted, the item should not be deleted either. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 13:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The linked items at Commons are themselves only maintained by virtue of cyclical notability from the WikiData entry. A Commons category should not be used to infer notability for WD by itself. Hieremias (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment As it currently stands, it would still need to be deleted on commons due to the current notability policy. There is currently an open RFD on this topic at RFD Notability policy reform if you're interested in changing it. I've seen a few people mention this commons link issue there. IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Note, that according to WD:N, "Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless either a) there is a corresponding main item which has a sitelink to a Commons gallery or b) the item is used in a Commons-related statement, such as category for pictures taken with this camera (P2033)." Generally, a Commons category is not seen as an indicator of notability. CC @IntensionalLogician Ternera (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This only refers to Category items right? I've seen lots of items survive RfD on the existence of a commons category, including the one we're currently in an RfD for. IntensionalLogician (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Q112306598

G:link (Q112306598): light rail system serving the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This duplicates Q10329246. Steelkamp (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Keep it is notable as a line : a network having one single line does not mean there should be only one item being the sole network. That modification breaks some wiki templates. Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 09:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140450201

Hakimi Noordin (Q140450201): Malaysian male model, actress and fitness influencer (born 2000): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy/selfpromotion (one wikilink) WikiBayer (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold awaiting deletion on mswiki. Ternera (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Q111328988

partial knee replacement (Q111328988): knee arthroplasty in which only one or two of the three compartments of the knee are replaced: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy

This is a poorly populated, sparse page that contains a link that appears to be purely promotional in nature. Orthodoc10 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 10+ others. --DeltaBot (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The 10 items that are linking to this page are real scientific articles about partial knee replacements. They were added as a batch by the same user. I am concerned that these links were used to provide “legitimacy” to this page.

The terminology of “partial knee replacement” does have a pre-established wikidata page: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, Q7884755. That page represents the same surgical philosophy of replacing part of the knee (partial knee replacement, unicondylar arthroplasty and unicompartment knee arthroplasty are all the same procedure).

I do not feel that a merge is appropriate this case.

Thanks for your time looking into this.

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

 Question I agree the item needs improvement, but help me better understand the situation here (I know nothing about this topic but want to understand the ontology situation here). We have knee replacement (Q1693864), a class of surgical procedures regarding replacing the knee. We have this item partial knee replacement (Q111328988) which is currently instanced as a medical finding (Q639907) but should probably be a subclass of knee replacement (Q1693864). Finally we have Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755) which appears to be a specific type of (or the nearly total dominant form? or the medical term for?) partial knee replacement. The links on this page are external identifiers to websites that refer to "partial knee replacement." Your comments make it sound like partial knee replacement (Q111328988) = Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755), but then why not support a merge? IntensionalLogician (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@IntensionalLogician:

Good question. I can help clarify for this as I am anorthopedic surgeon who specializes in knee replacements. Over the last 6 months, I have been updating and expanding historical and modern knee replacement concepts on Wikidata. A full contribution history of my knee replacement modeling can be found on my user page User:Orthodoc10.

Currently, knee replacement (Q1693864) is a superclass of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q3924226), and High tibial osteotomy (Q18349435).

High tibial osteotomy (Q18349435) technically shouldn't be a subclass of knee replacement, but that's a separate conversation.

Partial knee replacements is a term that we use in orthopedics to describe when only 1 or 2 of the 3 compartments of the knee are replaced. The only exception to this rule is that sometimes in modern day "full or total" knee replacement, the patella compartment is not always replaced but is still considered a full/total knee and not a partial knee replacement.

The pages of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q3924226) accurately describe the concept of "partial" knee replacements. Unicompartmental knee arthropasty is a much more common procedure than a bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. I believe that the most accurate ontology would be to have a "partial knee replacement" page positioned as a subclass of knee replacement and a superclass of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q3924226).

This brings back to the page I marked for deletion. That page was created with overlapping of concepts already established on Wikidata. It looks like the page was created by an automated mix and match bot by a user User:Geek surine who has a history of activity that has been flagged as concerning by Wikidata editors.

The page created by mix and match is thin and poorly constructed with 3 statements. My concern is that it was created specifically to have the "patientlikeme" identifier attached to the concept of partial knee replacements, rather than creating a well thought out Wikidata architecture for this concept. The other identifier on that page for "medlineplus" is flagged for a subject constraint and the only statement is an "instance of" medical finding which is not correct (a surgical procedure is not a medical finding).

Thinking through this further, another option would be to not delete the current page, and I could then build out this page as the subclass of knee replacement and a superclass of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q7884755) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Q3924226) previously discussed . I would then re-move the "instance of" statement, create the correct class/subclass relationships, clean up the medlineplus link, and add scholarly articles for described by source. This would allow the page to keep the currently linked scholarly articles and the "patientlikeme" identifier pointing to a more connected page.

I think this may be a good solution, thoughts?

Brian Orthodoc10 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems like sound reasoning, as long as the scientific articles that link to this as their topic have their topics changed to work with your knee surgery ontology, I  Support the request. IntensionalLogician (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Q5326647

Early Edu-Ware products (Q5326647): 1979 video game: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This item is listed as if it's a singe video game, but is actually referring to an unknown number of video games. The Ladin page it comes from is a stub that has no data on it. The English page is a redirect to the company itself, which seems like a more appropriate usage for this item. --13akoors (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Q133582513

Ermei Huang (Q133582513): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Item Q15934545 already contains all the information of Q133582513, and there seems to be no evidence for another person of the same name. In other words, Q133582513 may be a duplicate of Q15934545. The Chinese wikidata also recognises Q15934545 instead of Q133582513 by the chinese name change. --Atakes Ris (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

 Merge Huang Ermei (Q15934545) and Ermei Huang (Q133582513) assuming these are the same person, I think they are but kind of hard to tell from VIAF. IntensionalLogician (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Q18676411

Tao Te King (Q18676411): Daodejing Spanish translation: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Out of project scope: refers to a non-specified translation Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment in its current form its impossible to know what edition this was referring to. Courtesy pinging the creator @Rigadoun who appears to still be active on WD. Any chance you know what edition you meant when you created this? If not,  Delete as non-specified translation. IntensionalLogician (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Q131442310

Porky and Petunia Pig (Q131442310): fictional couple from Looney Tunes: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Q99773352

Porky Frog (Q99773352): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140642545

Iriadam (Q140642545): shoe manufacturer in Turkey: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140643293

ELEVEL (Q140643293): German online education and employer branding company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140643131

Ode (Q140643131): Norwegian cod farming company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Q140644214

Remaster Studio (Q140644214): AI-driven software modernization and engineering studio based in Belgrade: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)