###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q117844136: Archibald Olive (Q117844136) : (1818-1903) husband of Mary Narcissus Spain : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Notability. Together with the two other members of his family. Emu ( talk ) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Well, that’s not exactly our current understanding of notability that we employ in practice. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) None of those occupations "election candidate, or a soldier, or a trade unionist" are demanded by Wikidata:Notability, just that: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." Any dead person that can described with Findagrave or Familysearch are eligible so long as the references are "serious and publicly available". You are trying to apply English Wikipedia Notability to Wikidata. There may be an occasional fake entry at Findagrave, but they handle them just as we do, by deleting them. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Not quite, I'm trying to apply the local notability policy. Seems that I understand your vision of the 2nd criterion but then, saying that FindAGrave and FamilySearch are enough to prove the subject's notability, it sounds like >90% of deleted pages here were deleted in vain because all we needed is just determine if the entities are real or fake. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 10:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) What is the "local notability policy"? You are deliberately misinterpreting our core criterium: "The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." We delete fake/unverifiable entries because they lack "serious and publicly available references" and we delete self-promotion of living people. Dead people cannot promote themselves. I am sure there are plenty of dead people that died before we kept records, or those records have been destroyed by war or neglect. Think of all the Roman senators and minor poets and minor writers, where the records were lost after the fall of Rome. We didn't restart that level of record keeping till about 1500. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Again: There is no consensus to create an item for every living person that ever left some paper trail regardless of your reading of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong. Policy overrides any back-room discussions. If every living person was identifiable in a serious source per WD:N , then every living person would qualify for an item. It just happens to be the case that many people's lives have never been recorded in a 'serious and publicly available' reference. findagrave plainly is such a source. A source need not be discriminate to be 'serious'. The word 'serious' bears its plain and ordinary meaning. RAN is correct. Jack4576 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Yes, I am well aware of the wording of WD:N. As you are well aware, our interpretation of “serious and publicly available references“ generally refers to independent, not user-generated, not predominantly promotional, selective, authentic and organic material. There seems to be not a single piece of information that anybody who is not part of some sort of community project bothered to record anything about Archibald Olive apart from the people who were required to by law or had some sort of personal connection. It’s no good to quote bits and pieces from WD:N and give them the meaning you like to have. -- Emu ( talk ) 22:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) What do you mean by "our interpretation", I think you meant to write: " my own interpretation".  See: User:Emu/Notability . -- RAN ( talk ) 16:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Yes, I admit I didn't notice that the mentions in Memphis Avalanche (Q100277082) and The Tennessean (Q4808006) have been added to the item. There are no permanent URL's to those newspaper articles(?) but they may be a prove of notability, indeed. -- Wolverène ( talk ) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC) They are not really newspaper articles, they are (endless) lists of recipients of public funds because of an annual “Fourth of July” claim bill. The mentions read Archibald Olive, of McNairy country, $45.75. and Archibald Olive, McNariy county, $45.47 respectively. Most editors should be able to access those newspapers through The Wikipedia Library . -- Emu ( talk ) 08:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. As the newspapers are indisputably serious sources; this is dispositive of the discussion. The nomination ought be withdrawn. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) They are not really newspaper articles, they are (endless) lists of recipients of public funds because of an annual “Fourth of July” claim bill. The mentions read Archibald Olive, of McNairy country, $45.75. and Archibald Olive, McNariy county, $45.47 respectively. Most editors should be able to access those newspapers through The Wikipedia Library . -- Emu ( talk ) 08:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. As the newspapers are indisputably serious sources; this is dispositive of the discussion. The nomination ought be withdrawn. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. They are not really newspaper articles, they are (endless) lists of recipients of public funds because of an annual “Fourth of July” claim bill. The mentions read Archibald Olive, of McNairy country, $45.75. and Archibald Olive, McNariy county, $45.47 respectively. Most editors should be able to access those newspapers through The Wikipedia Library . -- Emu ( talk ) 08:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. As the newspapers are indisputably serious sources; this is dispositive of the discussion. The nomination ought be withdrawn. Jack4576 ( talk ) 14:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. Those mere mentions are enough to identify Archibald Olive as an entity. Reliability is not an issue. Findagrave is a serious and publicly available source, and therefore any entity described within (even if false) qualifies for inclusion as an independent entity Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Findagrave is a reliable source. It is under the editorial control of Ancestry. It has an error rate comparable to other sources we use. Being crowdsourced and being "reliable", are two different things. See: Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/VIAF errors and Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/LCCN errors for the non-crowdsourced Identifiers we use the most for birth and death dates. -- RAN ( talk ) 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC) It’s user-generated content, there is no threshold of notability. That’s not a serious source. But we have discussed this many, many times, as you are well aware. -- Emu ( talk ) 20:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Keep , the nominator makes a serious error. The above discussion reflects that they do not understand the Wikidata guideline, and does not appreciate the important policy reasons for it having been drawn as broadly as it has Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)