Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2017/03/12

Oppose You haven't reviewed these in detail to try to understand what the item creator was trying to do with them, or done any independent research to try to determine if they could be notable. (A lot of the age-related sports classifications ones seem like they could be useful as property values for sports.) You are just trying to mechanically apply notability criteria rather than doing it thoughtfully. SJK (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I warned the user (ping here and message in the user talk), we are here to know if the item can be deleted or not, the creator can add here his opininion. --ValterVB (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ValterVB, yes, but you appear to have made no effort to manually review these items. Rather than just automatically nominating everything that meets some criteria, you should consider each item thoughtfully before nominating (e.g. do Google searches on the labels to try to find out if some wikipedia article mentions them, or if they are mentioned in a database Wikidata can use, etc.)–since it is always better to improve an item and nominating it for deletion should only be done if you can't see any possibilities to salvage it; and it doesn't appear you've done that. Instead you've left that to others such as myself to do–I've spent heaps of time today doing that on your nominations when you should be doing it before nominating them. SJK (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The item are evaluated in the state in which we found. Is like if an admin must search in all the web, info on item before delete something. Users should commit a bit more to create useful item or at least near to our notable policy that are very low. --ValterVB (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It is always better to improve an item than delete it. But if people follow your approach–if the item looks lacking, don't spend any time trying to improve it, just delete it–then items will be deleted instead of being improved. Requiring people to research an item before deleting it–which research will often show up obvious ways in which the item can be improved–will result in many items being kept in an improved state which is a better outcome than deleting them. SJK (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If a person don't spend 5 second to add at least 1 usage on 1 item maybe it is not so interested in contributing well. --ValterVB (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If a person creates an item without adding claims or references, how can you presume that's because they are "not so interested in contributing well"? Maybe they had facts they wanted to add but weren't sure how to express them in Wikidata properties? By leaving the item there, someone else can come along and add facts later (or maybe even the original creator will come back after they learn more about how to use Wikidata properties, or after new properties are added...). Deleting it forecloses the possibility of improvement. SJK (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think these were part of thousands of items Yellowcard created to able to add P734 to footballers. I think they added P734 to most of them and cleaned-up quite a lot of family name items. The ones listed above must be some unused ones and/or broken ones (e.g. Q21452593 doesn't even have a label).
--- Jura 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I started to add surname at least at one human (Q5) but there are a lot of "probable surnames" not usable in Wikidata because don't exist people with these surname. We must keep or delete? Here there is a list with the search link to check them.--ValterVB (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How many are by Yellowcard? If it's limited to the ones listed above I'd just delete them (I think they completed what they intended to do). If all others were created by Vesihiisi (see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2017/03/06#Bulk_deletion:_Item_created_by_.40Vesihiisi:_and_no_more_notable), it would be worth to attempt to match them with existing items.
--- Jura 11:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Batch 1 and Batch 2 are surely created by Yellowcard, I have a second list to check, they are item that have "Wikis subscribed to this entity=Wikidata", but I must check better. Maybe when I have finishe to check all this surname I can create a final list with surname not used/usable. --ValterVB (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Batch 1 controlled, and is OK. Q.Zanden questions? 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Deleted/redirect/linked --ValterVB (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Q21509343

Q21509343: no description: (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs)

No page or person with this surname Q.Zanden questions? 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by ValterVB (talk • contribs • logs) --DeltaBot (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)