###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q42449814: WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814) : conference about Wikidata, held in Berlin, Germany in October 2019 : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Relevance not shown Gymnicus ( talk ) 15:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Galaktos : As far as I am informed, commons is not a valid link. The Wikidata link is definitely a valid link, but then the database object had to be structured differently. The database object should not be called “WikidataCon 2019”, but the name should be “Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019”. In addition, the first statement would have to be the following: WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814) instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) So far this has not been the case. So you can't use the Wikidata link for relevance here either, because the data object is not about the page in the Wikimedia namespace, but about the event itself. The meta link can be seen as a self-presentation by the Wikimedia project and is therefore useless. The data object therefore does not meet the first point of the Wikidata relevance criteria. The second point of the Wikidata relevance criteria is also clearly not met. The only links and also the Twitter posts come from Wikidata itself and can therefore not be counted as “serious and publicly available references” . The third point, as Bluerasberry mentioned, could be fulfilled. But to decide about it, you have to look at the links first. The data objects for the predecessor and successor can be set aside, because they should actually be suggested for deletion for the same reason as this data object. The other data objects describe people who will take part in the event. Now the administrators have to decide whether this makes the event relevant because a relevant person attended it. From my point of view this is not the case. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I am one of the organizers of Wikidata:WikiProject Events , where I advocate for making items about conferences. My position is that documented events with crowds of people are suitable for inclusion as Wikidata items, if we have some useful amount of metadata associated with the conference. If anyone has comments about establishing standards for including conferences then posting there would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Galaktos : As far as I am informed, commons is not a valid link. The Wikidata link is definitely a valid link, but then the database object had to be structured differently. The database object should not be called “WikidataCon 2019”, but the name should be “Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019”. In addition, the first statement would have to be the following: WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814) instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) So far this has not been the case. So you can't use the Wikidata link for relevance here either, because the data object is not about the page in the Wikimedia namespace, but about the event itself. The meta link can be seen as a self-presentation by the Wikimedia project and is therefore useless. The data object therefore does not meet the first point of the Wikidata relevance criteria. The second point of the Wikidata relevance criteria is also clearly not met. The only links and also the Twitter posts come from Wikidata itself and can therefore not be counted as “serious and publicly available references” . The third point, as Bluerasberry mentioned, could be fulfilled. But to decide about it, you have to look at the links first. The data objects for the predecessor and successor can be set aside, because they should actually be suggested for deletion for the same reason as this data object. The other data objects describe people who will take part in the event. Now the administrators have to decide whether this makes the event relevant because a relevant person attended it. From my point of view this is not the case. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I am one of the organizers of Wikidata:WikiProject Events , where I advocate for making items about conferences. My position is that documented events with crowds of people are suitable for inclusion as Wikidata items, if we have some useful amount of metadata associated with the conference. If anyone has comments about establishing standards for including conferences then posting there would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I am one of the organizers of Wikidata:WikiProject Events , where I advocate for making items about conferences. My position is that documented events with crowds of people are suitable for inclusion as Wikidata items, if we have some useful amount of metadata associated with the conference. If anyone has comments about establishing standards for including conferences then posting there would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Galaktos : As far as I am informed, commons is not a valid link. The Wikidata link is definitely a valid link, but then the database object had to be structured differently. The database object should not be called “WikidataCon 2019”, but the name should be “Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019”. In addition, the first statement would have to be the following: WikidataCon 2019 (Q42449814) instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) So far this has not been the case. So you can't use the Wikidata link for relevance here either, because the data object is not about the page in the Wikimedia namespace, but about the event itself. The meta link can be seen as a self-presentation by the Wikimedia project and is therefore useless. The data object therefore does not meet the first point of the Wikidata relevance criteria. The second point of the Wikidata relevance criteria is also clearly not met. The only links and also the Twitter posts come from Wikidata itself and can therefore not be counted as “serious and publicly available references” . The third point, as Bluerasberry mentioned, could be fulfilled. But to decide about it, you have to look at the links first. The data objects for the predecessor and successor can be set aside, because they should actually be suggested for deletion for the same reason as this data object. The other data objects describe people who will take part in the event. Now the administrators have to decide whether this makes the event relevant because a relevant person attended it. From my point of view this is not the case. -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 20:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) I am one of the organizers of Wikidata:WikiProject Events , where I advocate for making items about conferences. My position is that documented events with crowds of people are suitable for inclusion as Wikidata items, if we have some useful amount of metadata associated with the conference. If anyone has comments about establishing standards for including conferences then posting there would be helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I believe your view of Commons links is incorrect. The only Commons-specific rule in WD:N is that Category items with a sitelink only to Wikimedia Commons are not permitted, unless… ; since the item is not a category item and has sitelinks other than to Wikimedia Commons, in my opinion this rule does not apply and the Commons sitelink is therefore valid. And I’m also not aware of any rule that all items linked to the Wikidata project namespace must be Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) instances – do you have a source for that? Galaktos ( talk ) 21:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) (squeeze) @ Galaktos : Regarding the former: I don't know the exact rules now. But I always do it in such a way that I take the commons link out of consideration from the start. In this case, however, it does not matter from my point of view, because there is no “real” valid link with regard to the content of the data object. – Second: Why is a source needed for this? From my point of view it is logical! In which namespace is the page Wikidata:WikidataCon 2019 ? Exactly in the Wikidata namespace! So it is a page in the Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . Isn't that a logical conclusion? -- Gymnicus ( talk ) 21:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) The purpose of Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) is to describe pages which have no other reasonable instance of (P31) value, not to mark every page which is in the project namespace as being in the project namespace. Wikidata doesn't allow wikitext pages in the main namespace and over 90% of the pages in the Wikidata namespace are not linked to items with instance of (P31) Wikimedia project page (Q14204246) . - Nikki ( talk ) 21:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) @ Gymnicus I’ll reply to both points together – I think that deletion should be done according to the Wikidata policies, not your personal whims. If you don’t want to read WD:N , that’s your business, but if you want to argue that the item is not notable [I’m still assuming that by “relevance” you mean “notability”, which makes sense to me, because it looks like you speak German and they’re called Relevanzkriterien on dewiki, but feel free to correct me], then the notability should be judged according to the actual Wikidata notability policy, not your personal interpretation of it. The same goes for made-up rules about namespaces – there are plenty of Wikidata project namespace pages directly linked to other items, so it looks like your point of view, even if you think it’s logical, is not a majority opinion. (Some examples of such pages would be tools, but I’ve seen above that you also filed deletion requests for tool items, so I suppose that’s not likely to convince you.) Galaktos ( talk ) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)