User talk:ValterVB/Candidate to delete/0
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Jura1 in topic VIAF ?
VIAF ?
editIt 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
editIt 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.