###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q110077452: Q110077452 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) No notability discernible Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I restored the item. But I honestly am not convinced it shouldn't be deleted. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I see, I didn't realise that. In my opinion, items should neither be created, nor deleted, nor undeleted unless there is conviction at the time that the action is appropriate. Luckily as a collaborative project we have public spaces such as these to discuss the merits of each action; I would like to make the case to you, Gymnicus, Ari, and anyone else who is interested that the item is useful and not against the policies of Wikidata. What are your misgivings? Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I see, I didn't realise that. In my opinion, items should neither be created, nor deleted, nor undeleted unless there is conviction at the time that the action is appropriate. Luckily as a collaborative project we have public spaces such as these to discuss the merits of each action; I would like to make the case to you, Gymnicus, Ari, and anyone else who is interested that the item is useful and not against the policies of Wikidata. What are your misgivings? Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I see, I didn't realise that. In my opinion, items should neither be created, nor deleted, nor undeleted unless there is conviction at the time that the action is appropriate. Luckily as a collaborative project we have public spaces such as these to discuss the merits of each action; I would like to make the case to you, Gymnicus, Ari, and anyone else who is interested that the item is useful and not against the policies of Wikidata. What are your misgivings? Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I actually considered relisting the item here after undeleting it. I'm not sure it makes sense to allow an item for any arbitrary commons category. Commons categories appear to have no restrictions. I'm also not clear on what value this provides to commons (does that infobox matter?). I recognize I'm not super informed though. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) You are correct that Commons has a null notability policy; there is no 'lower limit' on notability, merely on 'educational potential'. However, there are other criteria by which categories there are considered, so they can go through deletion or reorganisation through the process known as COM:CFD. That detail aside, I understand the concern from Wikidatans about Commons sitelinks as far as 'notability-washing', but I think this danger is much ameliorated by the fact that both projects are volunteer-driven; although we have bots to help us, most contents are improved and judged by humans who can weigh the facts of the situation to decide if an inclusion is in good- or bad-faith (and more neutrally, is appropriate and useful). In this case we have a producer of free instructional comics and videos, which are included in (and some created for) Wikimedia projects such as Wikibooks. While this value remains valid even without Wikidata, it benefits from the advantage the project confers generally: being a wide-scoped linked semantic database. The specific application here is for the infobox, yes (which puts in one place information that may otherwise be duplicated in each project, compounding effort) but also Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (Q43387741) . Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Old discussion . @ Arlo Barnes , BrokenSegue , Ari T. Benchaim , Gymnicus : hard to find serious sources, hence Delete . The burden of proof lies on the item creator, user:Arlo Barnes -- Estopedist1 ( talk ) 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Abstain since I don't have the spoons right now to give this discussion the attention it needs. I trust the community's decision-making process and will go along with whatever the outcome is. Arlo Barnes ( talk ) 03:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)