User talk:ValterVB/Candidate to delete/0
(Redirected from User talk:ValterVB/Candidate to delete)
VIAF ?
[edit]It might be worth running this through VIAF before deleting, e.g. Q18396609 has a qid there. Given that some items have a lot of statements, I'm not sure if deleting them is a good idea.
--- Jura 15:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The number of statements is not an indicator of notable. A lot of item have missing the notable status for months. If none add source we cant't search source around the world for user too lazy to add their own :) --ValterVB (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- A large number of statements is likely the combined work of several editors, all of which is lost if we delete an item, such as the above.
--- Jura 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)- I don't think so. If an item don't fall under the 1th or 3th rule of notable guideline we need source not a lot of statements. No source no notable. For the specific item with VIAF ID (P214) the item is notable. If exist an "External identifier", normally is notable. --ValterVB (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The statement can show that the person is notable. This way you can keep it per #2.
--- Jura 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)- The statement can be false and without source we can't trust to the statement. In this specific case the statements what say about the notability? She is a a Swedish person born January 22, 1971. Only VIAF can show about notability. --ValterVB (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- It says "sculptor". Generally, these are notable .. ;) Most statements are without source, so I don't see what would be different here. Below a few VIAF for your sample.
--- Jura 18:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- It says "sculptor". Generally, these are notable .. ;) Most statements are without source, so I don't see what would be different here. Below a few VIAF for your sample.
- The statement can be false and without source we can't trust to the statement. In this specific case the statements what say about the notability? She is a a Swedish person born January 22, 1971. Only VIAF can show about notability. --ValterVB (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The statement can show that the person is notable. This way you can keep it per #2.
- I don't think so. If an item don't fall under the 1th or 3th rule of notable guideline we need source not a lot of statements. No source no notable. For the specific item with VIAF ID (P214) the item is notable. If exist an "External identifier", normally is notable. --ValterVB (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- A large number of statements is likely the combined work of several editors, all of which is lost if we delete an item, such as the above.
List: All done
- Q18945068=222145857917123020389
- Q19423950=56575043
- Q20016423=305883787
- Q20924718=306308983
- Q20986448=52996732
- Q21030770=207165011
- Q21075937=84920050
- Q21165296=108945638
- Q21165711=54016463
- Q21166187=96379922
- Q21166300=61441922
- Q21166880=272448650
- Q21175454=109582184
- Q21294566=32179715
- Q21334561=69869590
- Q21427188=224430249
- Q21461869=87223885
- Q21503496=755145857057722921455
- Q21511888=170378762
- Q21540308=100900232
- Q21559224=298171117
- Q21794009=290836850
- Q22809671=32407526
- Q22121482=84720953
- Q22210975=39467690
- Q22348224=32766008
- Q22992358=74258274
- Q23823424=21952254
- Q24083135=27837214
- Q24277032=190320960
- Q26036375=22085182
- Q26465371=6633612
- Q26720438=309751755
- Q26776782=198979250
- Q26788695=68330632
- Q26789101=121450865
- Q26789169=121450877
- Q26789224=78463905
- Q26791204=100694586
- Q26792303=121448760
- Q26806707=43428976
- Q26833743=264569533
- Q26833799=121402404
- Q26833956=161608355
- Q26834001=66606476
- Q26837277=67783555
- Q26837384=31489251
- Q26869118=96496753
- Q26878041=16757210
- Q26878076=307173439
- You are very "openhanded" about the notable criterium :) Jokes aside, you say « so I don't see what would be different here » it isn't different, but it's a long task, we have thousand of not notable and/or promotional item, every admin delete them, it is a continuous WorkInProgress and these items are growing instead of decreasing. Exist a lot of reports that help for this task and every user can check this reports and add source to item that they think notable. Search and add source it isn't a task that admin must doing. We have 3 simple rule to check notability and is very easy for user modify item to fall under this rule. --ValterVB (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe we just don't draw the line the same way (see #Q22302383). I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Some items are unlikely to be of much use, especially if it's unclear what an item is about. I did set up a few reports at Wikidata:Database report/to delete which seem fairly efficient. It's just that if people like Zolo or Magnus Manske create items you later delete, we are likely to end up in circles.
--- Jura 19:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe we just don't draw the line the same way (see #Q22302383). I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Some items are unlikely to be of much use, especially if it's unclear what an item is about. I did set up a few reports at Wikidata:Database report/to delete which seem fairly efficient. It's just that if people like Zolo or Magnus Manske create items you later delete, we are likely to end up in circles.
Commons
[edit]It seems item that went with commons:Category:Johannes van Deutecum got deleted: Q18129846.
--- Jura 15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Found source on BritishMuseum.org. I restored the item. I don't think that Commons category (P373) is sufficient as source. --ValterVB (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. If the person has a category at Commons, we need an item about them.
--- Jura 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)- Why we « need an item »? We can have an item but also for this item we need source like now. --ValterVB (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need sources for items with Wikipedia articles ..
--- Jura 18:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC) - Oh .. that's likely to be misunderstood. Of course we do!, but we initially rely on the sitelink only.
--- Jura 18:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need sources for items with Wikipedia articles ..
- Why we « need an item »? We can have an item but also for this item we need source like now. --ValterVB (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. If the person has a category at Commons, we need an item about them.