User talk:ValterVB/Candidate to delete/0

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The statement can show that the person is notable. This way you can keep it per #2.
--- Jura 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
List: All done
{
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)[reply]

Commons

[edit]

It seems item that went with commons:Category:Johannes van Deutecum got deleted: Q18129846.
--- Jura 15:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We don't need sources for items with Wikipedia articles ..
--- Jura 18:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ValterVB/Candidate_to_delete/0&oldid=471154613"