###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q97515903: Q97515903 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Does not seem notable, despite the number of identifers; no "serious...references" or "structural need" Jamie7687 ( talk ) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Are you sure you want to make such a blanket statement? Maybe you could add some sort of qualifier to that so that not everyone with an IMDb page is kept? Quakewoody ( talk ) 19:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) speedy No Ran , an IMDb page is not a criterion for keeping an Item, sorry. Additionally, the IMDb page appears to have been created by the contributor who created this Item. If you visit the IMDb page, you can see the person's notoriety is insignificant. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 02:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC) This editor may have written the biography for her on IMDb. But her IMDb page is fairly old. I wouldn't think he created it. It is at least 3 years old, probably more. Long before this guy came into the picture. Quakewoody ( talk ) 03:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) speedy No Ran , an IMDb page is not a criterion for keeping an Item, sorry. Additionally, the IMDb page appears to have been created by the contributor who created this Item. If you visit the IMDb page, you can see the person's notoriety is insignificant. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 02:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC) This editor may have written the biography for her on IMDb. But her IMDb page is fairly old. I wouldn't think he created it. It is at least 3 years old, probably more. Long before this guy came into the picture. Quakewoody ( talk ) 03:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) speedy No Ran , an IMDb page is not a criterion for keeping an Item, sorry. Additionally, the IMDb page appears to have been created by the contributor who created this Item. If you visit the IMDb page, you can see the person's notoriety is insignificant. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 02:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC) This editor may have written the biography for her on IMDb. But her IMDb page is fairly old. I wouldn't think he created it. It is at least 3 years old, probably more. Long before this guy came into the picture. Quakewoody ( talk ) 03:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think Wikidata only cares if the entry is a prank, or real. -- RAN ( talk ) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Quakewoody I don't have an ID on IMDb so I can't tell when the page is dated. Fairly old, do you write? Fairly empty especially (no WD:N as I wrote previously). I just know the mini-bio is signed "PR" and the contributor here is "AnonPR". There is reason to have doubts. If imdb identifiers are used as authority, they are not considered as a quality source on Wikipedia. If we keep this Item, we will start to keep all YouTubers with 1000 subscribers. It's not serious. Again, not everything that's on IMDb has to be on WD. I stay on sd. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I am not in favor of keeping it either. In fact, my suggestion on one of the other items was to delete everything the user created. I just wanted to set the record straight to make sure he isn't being accused of spamming IMDb the way he is here. And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) And, when I said it is older, there is no way to 'date' a profile. But the id numbers are sequential like Wikidata numbers. For example, they were doing 9500000 (9.5 million) in 2017/2018. Today they are between 11797000 (currently exists) and 11798000 (currently does not exist). Her profile is 8.2 million. Quakewoody ( talk ) 05:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Ah ok, the nm id, I see, txs . — Eihel ( talk ) 05:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) July 2017, their numbering system crossed over into 10,000,000 for the 'celebrity' profiles. I know this because another database had to "adjust" the way they inputted IMDb links to accommodate the 8th digit. Quakewoody ( talk ) 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) July 2017, their numbering system crossed over into 10,000,000 for the 'celebrity' profiles. I know this because another database had to "adjust" the way they inputted IMDb links to accommodate the 8th digit. Quakewoody ( talk ) 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) July 2017, their numbering system crossed over into 10,000,000 for the 'celebrity' profiles. I know this because another database had to "adjust" the way they inputted IMDb links to accommodate the 8th digit. Quakewoody ( talk ) 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC) July 2017, their numbering system crossed over into 10,000,000 for the 'celebrity' profiles. I know this because another database had to "adjust" the way they inputted IMDb links to accommodate the 8th digit. Quakewoody ( talk ) 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)