###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q109332244: Texas Institute of Technology & Science (Q109332244) : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Not every vapid twitter joke by Rocket Clown is notable for a Wikidata item Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 09:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC) @ Lucas Werkmeister : That was my first reaction, too. But on the other hand: There’s a lot of news coverage on Google News, even some somewhat legitimate media companies talk about this … topic of global importance. That’s probably enough for WD:N #2. Emu ( talk ) 16:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) it isn't a real proposed university. it's improperly tagged at the moment. it's just a transient joke. i don't think we should keep it. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 22:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) it isn't a real proposed university. it's improperly tagged at the moment. it's just a transient joke. i don't think we should keep it. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 22:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) it isn't a real proposed university. it's improperly tagged at the moment. it's just a transient joke. i don't think we should keep it. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 22:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC) There’s some news coverage (I wouldn’t call it a lot), but most of it doesn’t take Musk at face value. Slate , Quartz and Mashable clearly identify it as a joke, as does Mic ; New York Post and News 18 say it might be a joke (and don’t have any actual information about the “proposed university” beyond Musk’s tweets). In theory, I suppose it could still pass WD:N#2 as an instance of joke (Q131138) , but given that it’s not uncommon to find articles about popular joke tweets ( random example ), I don’t think this is a road we want to go down. Lucas Werkmeister ( talk ) 13:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Well, yeah. Since items of this kind are basically a modeling nightmare, I would be more than happy to delete them. But I doubt that WD:N would allow for that course of action, given that they are a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity and can be described using serious and publicly available references . If we delete them, there would be an unwritten asterisk (“unless we think it’s a bad one-off joke“). We can do that of course, but there are some implications. -- Emu ( talk ) 14:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)