###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q53951969: Geo Slam (Q53951969) : alledged swedish music producer and con artist : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) See w:en:User talk:M.Freedmann#Welcome! speedy deletion on enWP, deletion on deWP, deletions on commons - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 01:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC) @ Killarnee There seems to be a podcast and a 90min video, both for German public broadcaster NDR. If it’s about the same guy, he seems pretty notable per WD:N #2 -- Emu ( talk ) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC) The two things that you show are both not with him or about him, but they show that he is a cheater. You could also say "if people talk about him, he's relevant", so he's relevant simply because we're talking about him here. But no, he is not relevant, because you could break #2 down so much that you say that everyone who is in the phone book is relevant because there is clear information about the person. And it is nothing more. That doesn't change anything about the fact that he stands on the market square and says I AM, and then a camera team happens to come and report that he IS NOT. And watch out ... I'm not hitting the nomination button here so fast, but I'd rather not give a fraudster any support here. And take a look at the item. It says "schwedischer Komponist, Rocksänger und Produzent". That's absolute nonsense, if you had looked at the things in your own link then you would have just shaken your head yourself. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) And take a look at the item. It says "schwedischer Komponist, Rocksänger und Produzent". That's absolute nonsense, if you had looked at the things in your own link then you would have just shaken your head yourself. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) And take a look at the item. It says "schwedischer Komponist, Rocksänger und Produzent". That's absolute nonsense, if you had looked at the things in your own link then you would have just shaken your head yourself. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) So it’s the same person? That’s independent media coverage. If the information on the item is false or misleading, the information should be deleted, not the item. Keep Emu ( talk ) 19:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) done also this small comment on the ns1 talk page of one WIkipedia. Why not?-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I can do that, otherwise this discussion is getting too "philosophical" for my taste.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done. So many local sources of Swiss and German young artists where press release probably written by him were copied and pasted. It was worth the time spent on it, very interesting.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 01:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) No it is not small, but it's not significant to the deletion. It existed and was searched as a producer. It's normal to have peculiar cases in almanacs. Knowledge is never about purity. You can have also fake artists on almanacs.-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "also detailed description of minor producers" I don't say anything against this sentence itself. But if by "minor producers" you mean the person we're talking about, it's just not the truth, because the person is not a producer. You can say as much "but I would" as you like and tell any philosophical stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that your comment is factually incorrect, at least if it's meant the way it comes across. - Killarnee ( C • T • U ) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) The philosophical stuff is also your comment about WD:N. My comment was also missing a verb, would you like to comment that as well? :D Core point: there are IDs of an almanac, and they fit the purpose of the almanac. This is not a minor producer, it's minor entry in almanac of producers. He shows up there as minor producer, who turns out to be fake in the sources which finally prove his notability. But this does not put it out of the almanac. Better? But if you think that the fact that I talked about it without stressing that he is fake makes my comment void, go on and delete it. Who cares...-- Alexmar983 ( talk ) 00:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Not deleted consensus seems to be keep. BrokenSegue ( talk ) 22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)