###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q109941711: Q109941711 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Not notable Comeon J ( talk ) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Delete His ORCID have works, but none of them have Wikidata items. Fralambert ( talk ) 00:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Keep I am in favour of keeping all researchers with valid ORCID or other bibliographical links. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Keep I am in favour of keeping all researchers with valid ORCID or other bibliographical links. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Keep I am in favour of keeping all researchers with valid ORCID or other bibliographical links. Vojtěch Dostál ( talk ) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Keep per Vojtěch Dostál. -- Epì dosis 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Keep me too. We are building a bibliometric database, we made the choice years ago. In order to work, it needs to be complete. As a result, creations of articles and authors are going at the best pace possible and due to the improvement in the interconnections with database such as VIAF and national authority ID, the latter items are growing now a little bit faster than items of articles, but there is no structural risk.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 10:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Neutral Just to point out that ORCID iD (P496) is currently a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) . SilentSpike ( talk ) 18:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @ SilentSpike : It doesn't matter whether the ORCID iD (P496) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320) or a Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316) because this classification is not based on consensus, but was simply added by users. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 08:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I'm pointing out that if the data does not match consensus concerning this identifier then the data should be changed. - hence my neutral vote. If you truly believe these classifications do not matter then I suggest proposing them for deletion since they will always simply be added by users. SilentSpike ( talk ) 11:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)