###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q29949112: Overtones (Q29949112) : theatre troupe from Neuchâtel, Switzerland : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Is this group notable? Queryzo ( talk ) 22:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @ Affom : Do we have online access to the Panorama (Q29652168) ? This item has an identifier to this collection, but I cannot verify anything. Same applies to #Q29957717 below. Thanks, MisterSynergy ( talk ) 09:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)  There is no, or better not yet, an online access to the collection of the STS (Swiss Theatre Collection). It is an ongoing project to make the whole collection available for the public. First on Wikidata and later on another Linked Data database. The group mentioned is a real theatre troupe from Switzerland of which the STS has information collected in its physical archive. The identifier is an internal identifier used by the STS. As it is not yet available online, we chose to take a generic property Property:P217 as identifier property. Affom ( talk ) 16:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I don't like this approach: we use an ipotetic collection that none can acces (free or paid) to say that someone is notable. I prefer waiting for that the collection is available. For me the item must be deleted. -- ValterVB ( talk ) 16:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks for releasing it at Wikidata! d1g ( talk ) 13:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) I disagree. Of course it is preferable if a collection is accessible online, but for whatever reason some institutions did not manage to prepare that until today, mid 2017. This one seemingly spends some effort into development of an online catalogue, so it is fine anyway. As long as the institution has reputation, which is the case here, we can assume that its collection is about notable entities and therefore keep the item. Next admin should decide and close… — MisterSynergy ( talk ) 18:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC) There is actually an additional benefit of including it in Wikidata if it isn't already available everywhere else. --- Jura 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Not deleted Described by reliable source. Lymantria ( talk ) 06:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)