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/2026/10/10.

Requests for deletions

high

_{~125 open requests for deletions.}

Pages tagged with {{Delete}}

Property talk:P227/human/different/ORCID

Property talk:P227/human/different/sex or gender

Property talk:P227/human/different/sex or gender/2026/05

Property talk:P227/Wanted/human

Talk:Q114834007

Talk:Q1396390

Talk:Q141671795

Talk:Q503246

User talk:Bagida520

User talk:Qb help support

User:Abbydugas

User:Adrguy

User:Calcolo Stipendio Netto Online

User:DarkestDays0399

User:David2007Ristic

User:Dr. Abraham P. Detrench Kallon

User:Fynnedge Advisory

User:Halil Orkun Duru

User:Isreal oti

User:KavadarciHistory

User:MrKOM Trading

User:Pourmoayed

User:Prempratapsinghauthor

User:Sirathelstan

User:SUFIA MALIK

User:Tarottvwithtea

User:Wikiblogs01

User:রাজু আহমেদ ২য়

Wikidata talk:Dataset Imports/Suvrangsu chakraborty

Wikidata talk:Property proposal/Indian Film History film ID

Wikidata talk:Requests for new items/Header

Wikidata talk:Status updates/2026 09 07

Wikidata talk:Status updates/2026 09 14

Wikidata talk:Status updates/2026 10 05

Wikidata talk:Status updates/Current

Wikidata:Clevereternal

Wikidata:GND/human/rank/deprecated/different person

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Queenabigaelle Dugas

Wikidata:Tours/References/ar

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): Wikimedia disambiguation page for humans with the same surname: (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)

 Comment As the creator (COI disclosure: this is the JUNE company account): we agree with the nomination and will not contest it. The module content has been consolidated into Q141605921 (P277/P1552/P2283 statements) and the incoming has part(s) (P527) link has been removed, resolving the hold. We also request deletion of the remaining standalone module items below, same rationale and consolidation. The company item Q141605919 carries verifiable third-party identifiers (P3608, P12012, P13790, has certification (P10611)); no deletion is requested for it. Juneonlinemarketing (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2026 (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)

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)

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)

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)

And could be kept for N3? Not that its a big need, but still. That being said there are several statements on it that are not supported by the provided sources, like that she is was an independent politician or her manner of death, so maybe it was added by someone who knew the subject? Kordishal (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly added by relative, user Maxscheller added items about himself and his family. I also have no strong opinion on this. It does not hurt much to have an item for a dead low-profile person. Just being the relative of notable person is not sufficient for N3 in my view. Unless there's reliable secondary source that mentions the relation, my preference is to delete. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2026 (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)

But if the temporary account which nominated the item for deletion is the same as the subject of the item, doesn't that override the need to provide linked data for the book per WD:PRIVACY? Since Bunt wie wir: Ein queeres Mal- und Aktivitätenbuch für alle (Q132345440)designed by (P287)unknown value Helpobject named as (P1932)aurora would suffice. And it seems the item has already been subject to version redaction. — Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:55, 15 August 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)

 Keep it fulfills a (small) structural need and is clearly identifiable what it is intended to represent, so I don't really see an issue with it. The name is just descriptive of what it is. Kordishal (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2026 (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)

•  Delete Q128585209 Not used an no references
•  Keep Q130216190 Name in other languages, deprecated Hungarian, but since it has no references and no uses it could be deleted as it does not fulfill inclusion critera
•  Keep Q130216249 Used by a Czech person, deprecated Hungarian
•  Delete Q56598954 Not used and no references
•  Keep Q55106969 Name in one other language, but not used, Hungarian deprecated.

Optimally you would provide a source link for your claim that Hungarian names do not have double first names. Then add it to the deprecated values, otherwise someone might just revert.

Added the link provided in the other discussion. Kordishal (talk) 12:35, 24 September 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)

 Delete while some of them might exist, none of them are clearly identifiable and none have any independent references that are not the Peerage. Don't think an entry in Parbook is enough for inclusion either. So better to delete and people can recreate them should they become relevant to someone. Kordishal (talk) 13:52, 24 September 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)

This is definitely a data error propagated from GeoNames, unfortunately, they will have to get all the sitelinks deleted before we can. The area designated on GeoNames covers a square that ignores any administrative borders and expands into other villages. Additionally it seems that San Guiseppe does not have its own item on GeoNames, while it is visible on the map, I can't find a populated place or other entity for it. So potentially this should have represented it, but something went wrong.

Several of the wiki pages link ISTAT the Italian statistics institute, but I have found no evidence that this is supposed to be a statistical area. ISTAT uses municipalities for that. Kordishal (talk) 12:20, 8 September 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)

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)

 Delete It is not clearly marked and is also used wrongly on Commons [5].

It might be an instance of at-large (Q3682992) and is defined in this law [6]. So it is probably possible to improve the item to make it useful.

But unless someone does properly classify and expand the item with sources it should be deleted as it is not currently used anywhere. And I think it would be unlikely to be recreated as it exists now. Kordishal (talk) 12:59, 8 September 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)

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)

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 [7]

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)

 Delete: As a solution I implemented in other kind of items would be, for example for fictional planets, Vulcan (Q1088708)instance of (P31)fictional planet (Q2775969)relative to (P2210)Star Trek (Q1092) maybe? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Q130333187

Fernando Arrieta (Q130333187): Argentinian entrepreneur and journalist

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

Reason: Fernando Arrieta (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)

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? [8] 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)

Q94096405

André Cornil (Q94096405): priest and film maker: (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)

 Keep Seems clear enough to me now. Kordishal (talk) 13:34, 8 September 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)

I don't think a merge is appropriate here. To me, it looks like BENU is essentially a brand owned by Phoenix Pharmahandel, while in various countries there are companies authorized to operate pharmacies under that brand name. For instance, the operating company in Switzerland is named Pharmacies BENU SA, in the Netherlands BENU Nederland B.V. and in Hungary BENU Magyarország Zrt.. Personally, I don't see a problem with the operating companies in each country having their own data object. We would just need to take a close look at what exactly the Estonian Wikipedia article linked in the data object BENU (Q62562792) actually describes. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:36, 1 October 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)

Q131758973

Instytutu Doskonalenia Produkcji (Q131758973): Polish lean management company: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy. Dorades (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added missing references. Jcubic (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Q42273723

Library of Oriental Studies Leipzig (Q42273723): Library of Oriental Studies Leipzig: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Data object with no sources. The provided link cannot be accessed at least not by me. I am unable to find any further sources. Gymnicus (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hallo @Gymnicus see this link. Madamebiblio (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Madamebiblio: But isn't that a different library? It has a different name and also different areas of focus. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Q127324792

Luiz Carlos Mariano Da Rosa (Q127324792): ontologist, epistemologist and philosophical anthropologist: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Self-promotion of non-notable person --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

What exactly bothers you about that item? Granpar (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment This is one of my mentees, I tried to improve this item last week and have been warning the author about it. I also posted about it to WD:AN. Clearly self promotion but I'm on the fence about WD:N. Before commons de-linked the pictures, and I removed the incorrect links, it may have been possible to argue the item was spam, but not in its current state. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@IntensionalLogician, CommonsDelinker has since removed everything, as it was deleted from Commons. The item is actually hard to assess. What is your opinion now? זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 21:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to meet the standard WD:N criteria, but by the lenient standards WD usually takes towards academics, he seems to pass, or is at least on the fence, hence my hesitation to nominate for deletion originally. I agree its a borderline item and hard to assess, would benefit from more opinions. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Spam. He needed eight attempts to enter at least one authority file (GND), and still failed. Many claims, little evidence. User:Prof.MarianoDaRosa is a sock puppet by User:LCMarianoDaRosa. --Kolja21 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

 Comment now has a VIAF via indexing in the national library of Brazil. Personally still on the fence. IntensionalLogician (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Q140720416

Craig Fearn (Q140720416): British wellbeing strategist and board advisor: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Declaring an interest: this item is about me and I created it. WD:N criterion 2 asks for a clearly identifiable entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references, which is a lower bar than encyclopaedic notability. The item is sourced to the UK Companies House officer register (officer ID 4UovfskovZuhtm34cNbVYUe6da4); to the Institute of Directors, which published the announcement of my appointment as its South West Ambassador for Wellbeing on 27 September 2021 [9] and an article under my byline in July 2023 [10]; and to interviews in Authority Magazine and Brainz Magazine. I have no objection to the item being trimmed to only what those sources support. Craigfearn (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

 Delete: use of Wikidata for self-aggrandisement. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 07:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Q140696466

GP&R (Q140696466): Independent publisher of military history, geopolitical analysis, and primary source documentation.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 14:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 2 others. --DeltaBot (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the requestor is on about. The entry was just created recently, and while new to this, it does take us time to figure out the connections and terminology, but we get there. Show some patience and common sense and stop acting like a precocious Redditor. We all don't move at warp speed and hyperness. Matteson-Warfield (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Matteson-Warfield: The relevance isn't really demonstrated. Actually, all the items you created should be subject to speedy deletion. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@זיו: Per Wikidata:Notability policy, this entity fulfills multiple structural needs and refers to a clearly identifiable material entity described by serious, publicly available references.

First, GP&R fulfills a necessary structural role as the verified publisher of multiple physical editions possessing valid, international ISBN-13s. These editions are distributed globally and the master work is permanently cataloged in the National Library of Ireland (Q1756956), verified by their official national catalogue.

Second, the entity is structurally necessary to link published, primary-source historical documents—specifically the declassified 2022 ODNI Prepublication Review Mandate (Q140773768) and the AFSOC Commander Letter of Apology (Q140773818), which are housed and verified within the Internet Archive.

The entity meets the exact criteria for a material organization required to maintain the structural integrity of the database's publishing and ISBN records. The links are valid, referenced, and necessary. Matteson-Warfield (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The "ODNI Prepublication Review Mandate" is not a "historical document"; it is an incredibly obvious forgery. A government office like ODNI would not send a letter to a private individual which contained sensitive information requiring redaction. Omphalographer (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: Your claim relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States Intelligence Community's prepublication review protocols. When a cleared individual submits a manuscript for mandatory security review, it is standard federal administrative procedure for the reviewing agency (in this case, ODNI) to return correspondence and directives containing redactions to indicate classified operational details that are forbidden from public release.

Furthermore, Wikidata operates on the policy of Verifiability, not personal incredulity. The document in question is not a private, hidden letter; it is a published primary source artifact that has been in the public domain since 2022. It is physically published within the ISBN-verified text X Rubicon, which is permanently cataloged in the Library of Congress, National Library of Ireland (Q1756956), the Library of Michigan, and the University of Arizona Special Collections.

Accusing a registered publisher and a cataloged author of "forgery" based solely on a lack of familiarity with US intelligence procedures violates basic assumptions of good faith and ignores the established, institutional paper trail. The document is verified, published, and structurally necessary to the database entries linked to it. Matteson-Warfield (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Q129979930

Zaawaadi (Q129979930): female given name: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Out of project scope. Name that's not really a name. The "name" is a pseudonym for the pornographic actress Zaawaadi which is probably derived from the actual given name Zawadi ({{Q|Q129980083}}). Maybe her real (given) name but we don't know. Sabelöga (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I admit I was not sure whether it was worth creating the separate page but now here are my counterarguments.
It is still used by the actress as a given name within the adult industry, making this pseudonym living a life of its own as a separate name, ergo as a separate conceptual entity, so what can we do. Strictly speaking, if the person is using a certain name to differentiate themselves from another ones in their social group, this name does not have to be legal and/or culturally usual (non-fictive).
The rules, especially WD:N criterion 3, do not prohibit creating pages for pseudonymic parts that are intended to imitate a legal name, which are quite typical for the adult industry, in professional wrestling and so on. Of course, we should follow common sense, and at this point, the name Zaawaadi (even this spelling) does not sound absolutely impossible for a deemed/expected regular usage -- and you also can not guarantee that the name Zaawaadi will not ever be used as a stage name or even a legal name by someone else.
In the end, I believe it still clearly meets WD:N criterion 3 but I do not mind learning the further objections. Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Please also note that user Sabelöga removed Q129979930 from Zaawaadi (Q105613607) without waiting for this discussion to end. I guess that it is done to turn the course of the discussion to their advantage -- I would be happy to now if I am recklessly wrong. By the way, the edits like this might be easily described as harmful. --Wolverène (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to state that I of course haven't removed any statements to "turn the course of the discussion to [my] advantage", I reworked that item to a, in my eyes better state with more relevant references. We don't need eight references to interviews and new articles for a statement that a person is a pornographic actress for instance. One is enough.

Regarding the name (pseudonym), in my eyes Zaawaadi is a pseudonym just like Long Dong Silver (Long Dong Silver (Q1346315)) is until proven otherwise. I'm curious to know what you mean by that it's "used by the actress as a given name", and how you know that. Because, and I agree if that's what you mean, that if a name is used not only as a nom du porn but as a normal name in everyday life and all other instances where the government is not needed then a pseudonym could be considered a "real name" and be used in this way. But is it in this instance and how do can we tell and reference this? Sabelöga (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I do not challenge the fact that Zaawaadi is a pseudonym. I said that the pseudonym is used by the actress as a given name within the adult industry. That means that on social media or in interviews with adult/non-mainstream media, she should have accepted being addressed as Zaawaadi. I hardly imagine that she would insist that journalists address her by the legal name that obviously sounds different and is unlikely to be revealed. That's why in very this point of view, it is just as much a personal name as the one listed in the passport. I do not know how she is addressed on the film set (normally, the adult actors do not keep their real names a secret from each other, but for the viewers it is otherwise).
Long Dong Silver is also a point I have talked about. I would not create items for the *alleged* given names 'Long', 'Dong' or 'Long Dong' because they do not look plausible, at least.
I hope I was not too rude pointing to the removal of references. My problem is that IAFD looks the least reliable compared to all other links, because this is just a database. We could keep one reference but there could be some another one, and it will not raise a single question.
Regards, --Wolverène (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Q52637075

New Zealand Mathematical Society & University of Auckland (Q52637075): Academic publisher based in New Zealand: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

This is two items in a trenchcoat. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Merge with New Zealand Mathematical Society (Q19876045). Seems like this was derived from an automatically generated OpenAlex item. I checked OpenAlex and they don't have an item for just the "New Zealand Mathematical Society" but I'm assuming this is what it was supposed to be. -- IntensionalLogician (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Q140645519

Karia Samaroo (Q140645519): Canadian technology entrepreneur: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy IntensionalLogician (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This item should be retained because it independently satisfies both criterion 2 and criterion 3 of WD:N. An item only needs to meet one of the three criteria.

Criterion 2: clearly identifiable entity described using serious and publicly available references

Karia Samaroo is clearly identified and substantively described in multiple established publications:

• DL News published a dedicated profile of Samaroo under the headline “Robinhood just bought his firm. Now this crypto founder is going all-in on ‘decentralised AI.’” It describes him as a Canadian entrepreneur, states that he founded WonderFi and reports that he founded xTAO.

• BetaKit identifies him as “WonderFi co-founder Karia Samaroo (née Ben Samaroo)” and states that “Samaroo helped found WonderFi in February 2021.” It also describes his roles as WonderFi’s CEO and board chairman and his subsequent launch of xTAO. This source directly establishes that Karia Samaroo and the formerly used name Ben Samaroo refer to the same person.

• CNBC identifies Karia Samaroo as the founder and former CEO of WonderFi and interviews him in that capacity.

• The Block states that Samaroo previously founded and served as CEO and chairman of WonderFi and identifies him as the CEO of publicly traded xTAO.

These serious, publicly available sources consistently identify the same person and provide substantive information about his companies and career. The item therefore independently satisfies criterion 2.

Criterion 3: structural need

The item is also used as the value of founder (P112) on the Wikidata item for WonderFi. It allows WonderFi’s founder to be represented as a distinct, linked and unambiguous entity.

This directly fits criterion 3 because the item is needed to make a statement on another item more useful. The item therefore independently satisfies criterion 3.

A Wikipedia sitelink is not required when criterion 2 or criterion 3 is met. In this case, both are met. I respectfully request that the item be kept. --Canadatechcompanies (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

 Delete self-promotion, item was created by the subject of the item Kordishal (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Q25587867

Little Bittern (Q25587867): species of bird: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

There is already a species page for this particular animal at Q26129, which is both older than the page I have requested be deleted, and contains more detailed information. --An Sionnach Rua (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

 Question What distinct entity is Ixobrychus minutus (Q26129) supposed to represent? It is also modeled as a taxon with taxon name Ixobrychus minutus, while Little Bittern (Q25587867) represents the Little Bittern taxon and also uses Ixobrychus minutus as its taxon name. Ixobrychus minutus (Q26129) is additionally stated to be a taxon synonym of Little Bittern (Q25587867). If both items are intended to represent distinct taxonomic entities associated with the same biological species, why should one be deleted or merged? Please clarify. Amitie 10g (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

 Keep considering that Little Bittern (Q25587867) a lot of sitelinks its impossible to delete anyway. Not even sure why you would nominate it. To me it seems the most sensible would be to merge Ixobrychus minutus (Q26129) into Little Bittern (Q25587867). Kordishal (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Q247190

Carduelis cabaret (Q247190): species of bird: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Duplication: I believe this item technically has precedence over the duplicate, however, its duplicate Q12950843 is much more fleshed out and also uses the current taxon name and rank as of IOC World Bird List Version 15.2, whereas Q247190 is using a long superceded taxon name. If the consensus is that the deletion should go the other way around, I can move all info over if needed. I came across it while updating my own language wiki. --An Sionnach Rua (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Different names are usually kept as separate items, they can be linked with taxon synonym (P1420) and taxon synonym of (P12763). Peter James (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Keep According to Project_Taxonomy/Tutorial§Taxonomy_changes

Taxonomy is a science and subject to change. The default way for Wikidata to handle different scientific viewpoints is by using a separate item for every name. Like Wikipedia, Wikidata is not supposed to choose The One True Taxonomy, but rather to document the various scientific viewpoints. Where taxonomy is concerned, references are important: a reference is preferably a taxonomic work (general databases like ITIS, The Plant List, etc are not all that helpful or reliable).

Also, we have Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) and Canis familiaris (Q20717272), as well as Felis silvestris catus (Q57818409) and Felis catus (Q20980826), which refer to the same entity (animal) but represent different taxonomic treatments following reclassification. The same principle should apply here: the older item represents the former subspecies classification, while the newer one represents the species after reclassification. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Q140858931

Grüner Strom für KI? Diese Debatte stellt die falsche Frage (Q140858931): opinion piece by Torsten Beyer, published in 2026: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy. Dorades (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I am the author of this article. It is not a self-published piece – it was distributed through the RND network and appeared in around 30 regional German newspapers in print, as well as online. I have added reference URLs for two of them to the item. Happy to provide further evidence if that would help. Tbeyer01 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I view this deletion request as problematic. On what grounds should we delete such content while retaining obituaries simply because they appeared in a scholarly journal? Until there is real clarity regarding what constitutes a "notable" article in a journal, I am in favor of keeping it. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't fulfill any of the criteria of WD:N: No sitelinks, no serious sources describing the entity (i.e. sources about the entity) and not "needed to make statements made in other items more useful". This is not the right place to discuss the notability of obituaries or journals in general and this item is not an instance of one of those. --Dorades (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

However, this concerns an article in a supra-regional newspaper, which has significantly higher circulation and reach than scientific journals—whose articles are often retained solely because of their DOIs. If ordinary newspaper articles are now deleted due to a lack of DOIs, I consider that a blow to journalism. Meanwhile, scientific articles are put on a pedestal because there are databases that include every damn scientific article, no matter how insignificant, in their collections. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, this is not the venue to discuss the notability of obituaries, journals or scientific articles. The item in question does not fulfill WD:N. Journalistic articles have been deleted in the past if they didn't fulfill WD:N. --Dorades (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

In my view, it certainly is. Wikidata needs comparable notability criteria, and I ask again: How do you explain the fact that scientific articles are elevated to a special status solely on the basis of DOIs and PubMed IDs, while journalism is excluded simply because such straightforward identifiers do not exist in that field?

Regarding your last sentence: I have never experienced that. So please give me some examples, even though I know that’s difficult given the structure of Wikidata deletion discussions. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I think scientific articles are mass added not only because of DOI, but because they are potentially good reliable sources. News articles are okay sources in some cases, but worse that scientific articles, as they are less fact-checked. So it's fine to demand more evidence of notability for them. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are often archived by archives, so if you link to that you can add it too. Of course that doesn't apply to current articles. You could also add a newspaper article as a source if it covers something that is present on Wikidata. However, you'd not really want to use an opinion piece as a source on Wikidata, because representing opinions isn't really something that is done for the most part.

And lastely that notable list of references in the item on the author is clearly not using the property correctly. I doubt even he himself would consider this small article his magnum opus. Kordishal (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

 Delete Non-notable, self-promotion. Used for notable work property on Torsten Beyer (Q66724781), but there's no evidence that the work is actually notable, and it was added by the author himself. News articles are not automatically notable, they should only be added when needed as sources for statements. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Q140856310

Wie nachhaltig kann eine Website überhaupt sein? (Q140856310): no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy. Dorades (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Disclosure: I am the author. This item is part of a series of 13 articles from my regular column in Website Boosting, a German trade magazine with an ISSN. The article is unambiguously identifiable by issue number and page range. Print-only availability does not make it unverifiable. After one year it will be available online. If the community prefers a different modelling for a column series, I am happy to adjust. Tbeyer01 (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I view this deletion request as problematic. On what grounds should we delete such content while retaining obituaries simply because they appeared in a scholarly journal? Until there is real clarity regarding what constitutes a "notable" article in a journal, I am in favor of keeping it. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

See above. It's not useful to have the same discussion in two places by copy-pasting everything back and forth. --Dorades (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

 Delete The article clearly exists and is verifiable: Website Boosting is an established trade magazine with an ISSN, and issue 99 lists this article and its author.

However, I do not think that alone satisfies WD:N #2. I could not find serious independent references about this individual article; the available sources are essentially the magazine itself and the author's own websites. The ISSN and notability of the periodical do not automatically make every individual article notable.

The author's point that the work is unambiguously identifiable by issue and page range is valid, but identifiability alone is only part of criterion 2.

A reasonable alternative would be to model the recurring column/series as an item and use the individual articles as references where needed, rather than creating a separate Wikidata item for every installment. David Osipov (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Q140937146

Fragos Media (Q140937146): Fragos Media is an Italian performance marketing agency certified as a Google Premier Partner, Meta Business Partner and Certified Company, TikTok Agency Partner, and Microsoft Advertising Partner.: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

Does not meet the notability policy Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

On hold This item is linked from 1 other. --DeltaBot (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

 Delete I checked the three sources cited in support of Q140937146, and I do not think they are sufficiently independent to establish WD:N #2.

• The Engage article explicitly says the appointment was communicated by Fragos Media via a press release.
• Zeroventiquattro offers article-marketing and corporate-content services; I cannot prove this specific article was paid, but it reads largely like company-supplied PR.
• Media Key is the strongest source: the Google Ads Impact Awards finalist status is real and independently verifiable. However, the article itself still relies heavily on the agency's own case study and statements.

There is additional trade-press coverage, but much of it concerns appointments, client wins, interviews and company announcements rather than substantial independent coverage of Fragos Media itself.

The founder's disclosed COI is not a reason for deletion by itself. There is also a reasonable Keep argument: Fragos Media is clearly a real company, has external certifications/partnerships, financial activity and an independently verifiable Google award nomination.

However, after examining the sources rather than simply counting them, I currently see too much PR-derived coverage and too little genuinely independent substantial coverage. I would reconsider if stronger independent sources are provided. David Osipov (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this for discussion rather than a speedy deletion.

As disclosed on my user page, I'm the founder of Fragos Media. I believe the item meets WD:N#2 ("described using serious and publicly available references"): it's now backed by three independent trade-press sources, added as top-level described at URL (P973) statements — Mediakey, Engage, and Zeroventiquattro. Each covers a distinct, independently verifiable fact (an industry awards shortlist, an executive appointment, a client account win), rather than being a reproduced press release. Happy to add further sourcing if this isn't considered sufficient. Syria2407 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)