###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q63494178: Press conference of the President of the French Republic at the Europan Council (Q63494178) : press conference by Emmanuel Macron : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Lacks notability --- Jura 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure. Thanks, — Envlh ( talk ) 20:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It's not notable and its malformed. Wikidata is not a dump. --- Jura 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think a press conference meets the test of #2. Even with canvassing. --- Jura 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure. Thanks, — Envlh ( talk ) 20:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It's not notable and its malformed. Wikidata is not a dump. --- Jura 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think a press conference meets the test of #2. Even with canvassing. --- Jura 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure. I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure. Thanks, — Envlh ( talk ) 20:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It's not notable and its malformed. Wikidata is not a dump. --- Jura 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think a press conference meets the test of #2. Even with canvassing. --- Jura 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure. I do not see how Critera 2 of Wikidata:Notability is not met. Your other point is irrelevant, if you do not like something you can improve it or wish for others to do so. Rama ( talk ) 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @ Jura1 : as explained by Rama , this item meets the second criteria of notability; you think that the statements are problematic, but you don't explain why you think so. By the way, this has nothing to do with a Rfd procedure.