###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q76302537: Jessica Home (Q76302537) : (died 2015) : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Lacks of WD:N : no structural need (links are too in RFD); Peerage is not a sufficient reason to keep this item. Eihel ( talk ) 03:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC) RAN , I don't think there is any need for Chat anymore with your last intervention. In your sentence: We agreed to import The Peerage , could you tell me where it's written precisely "import the Peerage" ? Then if you want to talk to me, you can notify me, because I can't be everywhere. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 05:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC) I think it is potentially quite useful to be able to use {{ Wikidata/FamilyTree }} on any wiki, to show immediately how Jessica Home fits in to that famlly, because now that we have the data here we can immediately do that Link: Snapshot image of the above as of 2020-08-20 Link: Snapshot image of the above as of 2020-08-20 Link: Snapshot image of the above as of 2020-08-20 This means that if, for example, we get photos of any of these people on Commons, we can add a family tree to the page to show how they are. The other point I would make is that it may be quite early to judge whether particular people from The Peerage import are significant, or have close ties to people who were significant.  In the last three months, after the bulk upload, we have matched 25,000 TP items to non-TP items that had been pre-existing before that date, almost doubling the number; and that process is still going on at pace - in the last week, a further 3000 items have been matched.  And having started looking at eg English baronets last week, I know there are still a huge number of matches to be made.  So, in general, just because a TP item doesn't appear to be closely connected to anyone with lots of external links right now, that does not mean that that item will never have such links: often it may turn out to have such potential connnections, it's just that the necessary merges haven't yet been identified and made to bring them out yet. (Also, the more family links that are left in, the more chance there is of finding and tracking down these crucial merges). Secondly, it's worth noting that the identification and linking of people depicted on Commons is still only at quite an early stage.  So at the moment it is hard to be really sure whether any item here may or may not still turn out to be useful, eg for Commons SDC. Link: Snapshot image of the above as of 2020-08-20 I was told that just about everyone in The Netherlands can claim to be his family. So, that part is not a big deal to me. But not everyone can say they have town named after them or that their castles are featured on WP. Quakewoody ( talk ) 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC) A town is generally not named after a living person (unless one is incredibly old or totalitarian). There are plenty of family names that somehow relate to place names. Wikidata allows to do quite a lot in that field. Still, I don't think we need to create an item for everyone with such a name. Statements can be made on items for the names. --- Jura 17:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) You constantly say an entry violates Wikidata:Notability but never express exactly how it is in violation. It is similar to holding up a bible and telling me the answer is in here, without specifying a chapter or a verse. Everything at Wikidata:Notability is numbered to make it easier to refer to. Rule 2: "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." -- RAN ( talk ) 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The issue is: Are there sources describing the relationship? If yes, this person belongs to Wikidata. On one hand, vital records described almost everyone (this does not mean it is now the time to create items for all people, as scalibility is an issue - see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Handle_genealogical_information ), but some are described in additional sources; on the other hand, there are no modern people with documented descent from any of (suggested) common ancestors of all humans such as Adam and Eve.-- GZWDer ( talk ) 22:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) GZWDer — Eihel ( talk ) 01:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC) First of all, I was not the one who asked the majority of these requests on these families (in fact I made only one, this one). Those who filed these requests mostly write "Notoriety", so go to those. When rules dictate WHAT to respect and you ask what is not being respected, I question myself strongly and I return the question to you. Where is it not being respected, you ask? Everywhere, since someone writes to you that it is not respected! You took as an explanation "structural need via Peerage" until now, that doesn't mean anything and "structural need" is not in n° 2. Your example is even more confusing. An exact example would be: they tell you it's not in the Bible and you answer "structural need via Torah" !? Which means that you have consulted them (at least partially) and you have been able to give me a more convincing reply. For rule 2, we hit another problem: "I put it in my sauce" with "described using serious and publicly available references", even if it doesn't suit everyone. Because not all conventions are "up to date". So that WD is not a garbage can. Because in all properties with "authority record" I don't necessarily include everything. GZWDer , this is what I am designing here, right now: if you find me a ascendants to the third level or descendants to the second level or first cousins, which is notable in the Wikipedian sense, I bow down. I can't do better. Cordially. — Eihel ( talk ) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Not deleted ; reason same as in Special:Diff/1270025102 — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 17:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)