In a recent mail it says: "1. Notability. The current rules for Wikidata means that it is not acceptable to create a wikidata item until after the Wikipedia article has been created." Given that I respect the person who wrote it, I expect that this is correct. It is however very much against the best interest of any project that wants to use Wikidata.
In my understanding, when something has sufficient notability to merit an item, it can be created. This is very much the observed practice at Wikidata. There are literally thousands and thousands of villages and what have you that exist as related !! information from China. There are many more categories of items where no article exist and this is a good thing.
When Wikipedians have a subject list that they want to convert into Wikipedia articles, there is nothing wrong when they first make sure that relevant information exists at Wikidata. This works particularly well for multi lingual projects held in for instance India.
My request for comment is that the notability requirements needs to reflect that when people want to write articles about a specific category of information, they can create all the relevant items and add all the relevant statements as they see fit. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that mail was incomplete or out-of-date. Have a look at the current notability policy. Two out of three options do not require a Wikipedia page to exist. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
My vision: WD:N must not allow creating:
huge number of items that will be merged or restructured in the future (example: Commons category item and corresponding Wikipedia article item);
huge number of items that can not be automatically validated (at least one link to some external database is required).
WD:N must allow to create items for every real world item that is listed in some structured source. For example for every writer that is mentioned in biblio-catalogs, every geo-object, every star or asteroid, every chemical compound and etc. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The notability policy was changed last April to allow entities without any associated sitelinks. It seems that the issues you mentioned are resolved. So... Any objections to closing this RFC? --Yair rand (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
"The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references" doesn't seem to be generic enough to cover what requested here. --Nemo 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that helps. An item not needed by other items would not qualify for that point, so in the end only the first two matter. --Nemo 16:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I could imagine bot generated items for each item in some predefined external databases chosen by user consens. For example generate items out of the numbers in the GND database. It can be a big help in sourcing. There then might be unused items as there may be items that are never used as a source and have no corresponding wikimedia page, only the link to the page of the GND.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there might be GND items that may be never used. But their vast majority will on the long run, and there is imho no way to predict to which group an item belongs. Thus I pledge for collecting them all. even more so with existing collections of geographical objects and many more. --Purodha BlissenbachDiscussion 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.