###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q119906811: Martin Lätt (Q119906811) : Estonian photographer (fl. 2023) : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Not notable. Created because of Commons category Estopedist1 ( talk ) 16:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Delete Where are the source, the only thing I found is his linkedin profile and is professional website [3] . Nothing suggesting notability. Fralambert ( talk ) 19:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC) I was not able to find any significant sources but, under our current notability policy, a Commons category sitelink is sufficient (for non-category items). Bovlb ( talk ) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I was not able to find any significant sources but, under our current notability policy, a Commons category sitelink is sufficient (for non-category items). Bovlb ( talk ) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I was not able to find any significant sources but, under our current notability policy, a Commons category sitelink is sufficient (for non-category items). Bovlb ( talk ) 20:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) @ Bovlb @ Fralambert @ Pigsonthewing : when strictly following WD:Notability , then yes, should be kept. But, if I am correct our current practice doesn't follow this obviously bad rule. Bad because, huge load of not notable stuff can be added to Wikidata, see bunch of not notable stuff: Commons:Category_talk:People_of_Estonia . We definitely should act somehow?! Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC) I tend to ignore that the item have a Commons category and treat it as a normal item with no sitelinks. So it must fulfill #2 or #3 to be notable. I maybe wrong, but it's the best way avoid the creation of items that may also violate WD:LP . Fralambert ( talk ) 14:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) This item does not violate WD:LP, and that is not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not a big fan of the fact that a Commons category sitelink is sufficient for non-category items – I think it provides an end-run around the intention of the policy – but that is what the policy says.  As an administrator, I see my job as enforcing the will of the community, not imposing my own views of how things should be.  If practice differs from policy, then one of them ought to shift. Bovlb ( talk ) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Not deleted per Bovlb. I don’t like the rule either but it’s the generally accepted interpretation of WD:N. -- Emu ( talk ) 11:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)