On 31 July 2016 at 14:44, <[email protected]> wrote: > I looked quickly at AN and it seems the issue is about creating items about > Wikimedians who dont clearly meet the notability criteria.
No; the deleted items include: * Items about talks given at Wikimania * Items about the people who gave those talks, after agreeing that the talks could be videoed and made available publicly; using only the names or nicknames (usernames) by which they identified on the publicly-viewable web pages about Wikimania Note that some of the deleted items about talks were for talks given by people about whom we had, and still have, Wikidata items. > Recreating items about users after they haved objected, is dangerous ground > to be walking on Poppycock. What if other people about whom we have items object? What about people whom we have Wikipedia articles? Why should "users" be a special category? > Wikidata needs an accepted and enforced BLP. Probably, What it does not need is /involved/ admins deleting items when no policy allows them to do so, and then refusing to recreate them so that a proper deletion discussion can take place, when their deletion is challenged. > I assume these items in question would fail the proposed BLP due to lack of > reliable source, if it was anything like reliable sources is defined on > Wikipedia. It is Wikidata, not Wikipedia, notability policy - and certainly not an ill-conceived, draft Wikidata policy which has attracted little support - which applies. The items in question (both those about talks, and the speakers) satisfy that. However, the inability of the Wikidata community at large to see and discuss these deleted items prevents that community from coming to consensus about that. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
