###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q62027762: Qixxit (Q62027762) : Travel booking application, website : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Not notable. Pr. Kadı ( talk ) 20:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) {{ Deleted }} -- DeltaBot ( talk ) 20:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC) I reverted my deletion as someone made me remember that I keeped it a another time. Probably a another admin should check for it. -- Fralambert ( talk ) 21:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC) On July 12, 2021 and August 4, 2021 the data object was retained by Fralambert and Emu . -- MKBler ( talk ) 22:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC) On the topic itself, shouldn't the relevance come from the fact that the previous owner and operator of this app was Deutsche Bahn? -- MKBler ( talk ) 22:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Not necessarily, DB doesn’t have the Midas touch that creates notability out of thin air (others do). But the WIWO and Connect articles should be enough for WD:N #2 notability. -- Emu ( talk ) 23:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Not necessarily, DB doesn’t have the Midas touch that creates notability out of thin air (others do). But the WIWO and Connect articles should be enough for WD:N #2 notability. -- Emu ( talk ) 23:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Not necessarily, DB doesn’t have the Midas touch that creates notability out of thin air (others do). But the WIWO and Connect articles should be enough for WD:N #2 notability. -- Emu ( talk ) 23:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : But there is the third point of the criteria of relevance. It says that a data object can become relevant if - let's call it - it is an added value for another relevant data object. In practice this means that when the relevant data object links to the affected data object. In this case, this would be possible from the data object of Deutsche Bahn to the data object of Qixxit using the property owner of (P1830) . This statement can also be substantiated by the above-mentioned news articles. So the added value point should be fulfilled here, shouldn't it? -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ MKBler Hm, I’m not sure if owning something makes the owned thing notable. But this is a moot point anyway in this case – there is WD:N #2 notability in this case, as I saw it and continue to see it. -- Emu ( talk ) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC) @ Emu : Yes, I understand the objection. But this third point is also quite broad, I think. When does the third point generate relevance and when does it not? I think there's a lot of room for interpretation there. But as you say, in this case it's just a side job. The owner of Deutsche Bahn's relationship with Qixxit only shows that the data object is relevant in addition to the already existing sources. -- MKBler ( talk ) 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)