Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO. It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect? Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive. About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism. But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective. P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one? Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Hoi, There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata. Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a policy that is a mirror image of their policy. I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data. Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it concerns BLP. Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the relevant questions together. What this approach accomplishes is: * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red links to Wikidata items * it allows for the Wikidata best practices * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for our overall BLP. What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not so much in the endless bickering. Thanks,       GerardM [1] https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia-and-its-blp-approach.… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The winners of Dutch literature awards are IMHO fine for wikidata. I mean, what is the problem, that they are LP? Would be any difference form the relevance point of view, if they were asteroids or hamlets or small lakes or skerries on a nautical map? Some of them will get a page one day on some wikis, some of them will be cited on a list, some ignored... it happens all the times for a lot of items.  We are uploading item for scientific articles, what is the problem with their authors? there are also national or institutional database for specific objects like work of arts or maps or specific documents, something that will show how loose are the borders between structured data of commons and a wikidata platform with lots of various items. I am sure we are importing some of them, what's the issue with their minor authors if they are still alive?  Wikidata has also its own development issue to address, I agree, it can't store everything, but the solution to this question should not come with simple comparison to platforms with different roles and goals. Wikipedias have their battle with BLP and spam and so on, but in no way this should disrupt the wikidata workflow. Wikidata items have also their standards, the most reasonable future threshold here is for me the quality of the source but not the presence of the item per se if it has an external, good-quality ID. If part of the issue here is that someone has some problem that the BLP they managed to erase on a local platforms is still on wikidata, honestly I think they should get over it focusing on more productive tasks. In any case, every wikiplatform can decide to use wikidata for the management of their red link and their infoboxes, only if they want to. I don't see the problem. Il Mercoledì 27 Settembre 2017 7:50, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Hoi, When a database is linked to, there are many reasons for linking. One is it is "authoritative" so the data is of a high quality or it is the standard bearer in a particular field. Another reason is because there is a clear operational purpose. Linking to the Open Library for instance has such a purpose; it allows us to link to free content; it provides the basics for a mechanism so that Wikipedia readers can read books of an author or read a particular book. One reason often neglected is that the other database is actively maintained and its maintainers collaborate with people at Wikidata to mutual advantage. This is the case with the people at Open Library, with the people at OCLC. It is most powerful because past activities have had a measurable effect in their projects and in Wikidata. From my personal perspective active collaboration is to be preferred over the authority of another source. The reason why both red, blue and black links ought to be linked to Wikidata is because it enables comparison and evaluation. When red links are linked to a Wikidata item they will not turn blue whan an autonym is created. Blue links have an implicit link to a Wikidata item. It happens all too often, particularly in lists, that a blue link is associated with the wrong article. It is reasonable to expect that multiple instances of the same list contains links to the same items. With an explicit link it becomes easy for bots to compare lists in the different Wikipedias and find these differences. It is also possible to compare with Wikidata but that is of a secondary relevance.. With red links and blue links linked to Wikidata, the similarity of the data on an item with the data in an article indicates a probability that the quality in Wikidata is high. Given the huge number of statements on items that have no reference it is the best that can be done given the enormous amount of data in Wikidata. Given the policies of Wikidata, there will be references to living people that only exist to complete a list. I am adding many Dutch authors at this time to complete the award winners of Dutch literature awards. They consist of a label in Dutch, the fact of their humanity often a gender indication and the fact that they won the award. This pattern is true for many awards and, it is an accepted consequence of the Wikidata notability policy. These are in effect red links in a Wikipedia. Thanks,        GerardM On 27 September 2017 at 05:08, Alessandro Marchetti &lt;alexmar983(a)yahoo.it&gt; wrote: Personally, I think that if person has an ID on some databases, than it can stay on wikidata. Once in a while some database can be removed if issues are pointed out about their accuracy, but if a database is sound and professional, we should use it to fix an item. it could be the same for a databases of sites, buildings or museum items too. Creating a wikipedia-style averaged policy on the issue is much more vague. Especially when local pages do not exist, the IDs is the key parameter to start, IMHO. It is ok if a wikipedia has only a fraction of relevant "photographers" or "painters" or "athletes"... but a database should be complete and objective, it cannot rely on the funnel of what some wikipedia accepts and other don't, it would make it more biased and unbalanced importing a local bias. What's the point for example if I find an archive of Dutch photographers with IDs to import only those that have a page on nlwiki (or maybe enwiki, dewiki, frwiki)? You import all the codes, some items will have wikipedia pages, some will not, what's the real issue on this aspect? Being standardized and coherent is more important for an archive. About the quality of the items, this comes as a second step. Some of them will always be less cured, we can say that for a BLP a minimum requirement of properties is necessary for example. I can accept that an item with just one ID is removed if no additional information can be found. That is, a BLP item with a limited number of properties and no platform and just one ID can be proposed for deletion, although this should not be an automatism. But if you care about an item, you can improve it if it risks to be deleted. This is a functional issue, if an item does not tell me if you're a man or a woman, your age, your profession... well it is basically few things more than a ugly duplicate of a string in the url of the original database, so what's its utility? Some more complete output in some basic query here and there, maybe, but it should be possible to ask more. The point is that this should be considered in the framework of a database and its use, a more "functional" than "philosophical" perspective. P.S. Not sure I have understood the blue and red link request, in some minor wiki red link can be linked to wikidata, but why the blue one? Il Martedì 26 Settembre 2017 19:07, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Hoi, There is a lot to do about the current absence of a BLP policy at Wikidata. Many people, particularly those involved in Wikipedia, insist on one and a policy that is a mirror image of their policy. I am opposed to such an approach because it will be detrimental to the best practices in Wikidata and it will stifle the inclusion of data. Nevertheless there is a need for better quality particularly where it concerns BLP. Only being against is a bad position so I have laid out the arguments for a more inclusive BLP and quality approach [1]. It does bring many of the relevant questions together. What this approach accomplishes is: * better quality in both Wikipedia and Wikidata * an opt in change in the Wikipedia environment that links blue and red links to Wikidata items * it allows for the Wikidata best practices * it invites any Wikimedia collaborator to make a positive difference for our overall BLP. What it does not provide is an instant BLP solution for Wikidata, this is not realistic given the huge number of items involved, people often specific to one or no Wikipedia. It will not convince everyone and that too is to be expected. After all the proof of the pudding is in the eating and not so much in the endless bickering. Thanks,       GerardM [1] https://ultimategerardm. blogspot.nl/2017/09/wikimedia- and-its-blp-approach.html ______________________________ _________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia. org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@ lists.wikimedia.org?subject= unsubscribe>

Actually, I believe that at some point Wikidata will be ready to ban unsourced statements (including sources to other Wikimedia projects unless appropriate), which will automatically solve the BLP issue. Cheers Yaroslav On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; wrote:

We don't need to ban statements when we can just deprecate them with a reason. I think the whole point is to allow differing views equal weight, based on sourced statements. By allowing statements to reside side-by-side like this, it will be easy to see which Wikipedia projects (or sub-areas of interest on Wikipedia projects) have the most disputed statements on Wikidata. Right now that would be English Wikipedia overall of course, just by sheer numbers of pages. However, we are already at a point where you can look at specific sub-areas (players of certain national sports for example) and look at the controversial statements per Wikipedia. It could be quite interesting. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 27 September 2017 at 10:01, Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As per Jane, "depreciation" might be usefully interpreted as grading the sources or finding a semi-automatic way to assess notability for different purposes. On my home project of Wikimedia Commons, the concept of notability is irrelevant as whether a media item is valid to host is based on likely educational, historic or cultural value alone. In this way, a portrait photograph of someone winning a local surfing trophy in 1988, or a series of wartime sketches by a non-notable artist, is okay for Commons but are unlikely to ever be of much relevance to Wikipedia. On Wikidata I can imagine we may wish to import complete datasets creating lots of person-based statements, such as all past registered company directors. The vast majority of these statements would have little use for BLPs on Wikipedia, but for anyone running an analysis of corporate history, tracking the flow of directors across institutions would be a great novel use of Wikidata, and in turn might provide insight for new Wikipedia articles or research outside of the wiki-verse. "Notability", "Educational value" or "Historical value" are slippery ideas and I suggest that any meaningful community proposals are heavily illustrated with case studies / case books so that we have a credible common (international) understanding of what these words mean. Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae