###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q18351081: Q18351081 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Non notable Author, article deleted from enwiki long time ago. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk ) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Keep has commons link Germartin1 ( talk ) 22:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC) That isn’t enough, see WD:N #1.4 -- Emu ( talk ) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) That isn’t enough, see WD:N #1.4 -- Emu ( talk ) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Delete not-notable – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud.prince ( talk • contribs ). Cloud.prince has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. whym ( talk ) 13:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [ Cloud.prince has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. whym ( talk ) 13:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [ Delete no credible info about him Germartin1 ( talk ) 22:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC) enwiki is listed as a subscriber in [1] but w:en:Special:EntityUsage/Q18351081 contains nothing. Is this an artifact that should have been (but was not) cleared after deletion? whym ( talk ) 14:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Delete , but wait for c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Delwar Jahid . Tol ( talk | contribs ) @ 15:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Delete -- Oursana ( talk ) 22:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC) That isn’t enough, see WD:N #1.4 -- Emu ( talk ) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : It's not a category item, the sitelink and use in the infobox should be enough to keep this item. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : What would be a category item ? Emu ( talk ) 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : instance of (P31) = Wikimedia category (Q4167836) . Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : It is very controversial whether this is simply enough. We have often deleted data objects with a category on Wikimedia Commons and if no other sources that generate relevance are added to this object, then this will also happen with this object. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : I don't view it as controversial: we're using Wikidata information on Commons, so this item should be kept. It's no different from a case where we have a sitelink to Wikipedia. But I'll leave this open to see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : You can see it differently, I can give you at least one data object that was deleted, although there was a Wikicommons Category. As far as I know, the topic is controversial among administrators. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : Please point me towards that data item so I can undelete it. This really shouldn't be controversial - we have a sister project that is using Wikidata information, we shouldn't delete it in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I can only tell you the Wikicommons category ( Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band ), you would have to find out the data object yourself. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I would also like to address a curious case. Like his Commons Category, the data object for Fabien Coupoux has already been deleted several times, although there are two images ( 1 , 2 ) for him on Commons. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus : That clearly shouldn't have been deleted. I've undeleted commons:Category:Fabien Coupoux - but I can't find their QID, can you point me towards it please? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC) Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band was Q106605647 . -- Emu ( talk ) 22:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : The deletion of Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band (Q106605647) definitely shouldn't have happened, since it broke the infobox at commons:Category:Manfy Manfire and the Hamburg-Street-Rock-Band . I've reverted it. Why did you delete it? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Mike Peel : I don’t share your interpretation of WD:N #1.4 for practical reasons. This item is unsourced and from the looks of several Google searches over the last months it seems unsourcable. The infobox doesn’t add any relevant information to the Commons category. If a Commons category is enough for notability, that’s near-automatic notability to the many, many “entrepreneurs”, “writers”, youtubers, media people and, yes, Wikimedians who manage to upload something on Commons. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) @ Emu : I won't oppose you if you want to propose the Commons category and the files it contains for deletion, if they are subsequently deleted. Otherwise, it's the same as nominating an item for deletion here that still has a Wikipedia article attached to it - it should wait until the sitelink is deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk ) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) But I don’t oppose the files being on Commons and I have no problem with the category. But I don’t think Commons is just any other project for notability reasons. I won’t start a wheel war over Q106605647 , though. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)