###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q19841909: Q19841909 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Sales promotion by User:Tonye -- 216.151.180.62 20:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Why was this flagged as sales promotion? Its an actual company owned by Fullbeauty Brands... It has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc... – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). The company doesn't need a Wikidata item, until there's a Wikipedia page. First start at Wikipedia, then link it to Wikidata. Currently it doesn't meet the Notability criteria. Mbch331 ( talk ) 21:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The company doesn't need a Wikidata item, until there's a Wikipedia page. First start at Wikipedia, then link it to Wikidata. Currently it doesn't meet the Notability criteria. Mbch331 ( talk ) 21:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The company doesn't need a Wikidata item, until there's a Wikipedia page. First start at Wikipedia, then link it to Wikidata. Currently it doesn't meet the Notability criteria. Mbch331 ( talk ) 21:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Ok, I didn't realize that it had to have a Wikipedia profile first... as they were already listed in Freebase. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonye ( talk • contribs ). Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Please answer after my comment and not somewhere in my signature. And please sign your comments using ~~~~. Mbch331 ( talk ) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) @ Mbch331 : You are actually not right here. Wikidata:Notability says: 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. So if the source can be described using "high authority mentions in the press" it is notable in Wikidata. -- Bene* t a l k 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Wouldn't that merit at least one article? If it doesn't I may not have any "mentions in the press", let alone "high authority" ones. The only indication we have that "it has accolades, high authority mentions in the press etc..." is Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs )'s word. - cycŋ - ( talk • contribs • logs ) 09:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2. It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. FYI cycŋ , Bene* : Tonye is Tony Edward, of "Elite" SEM Q19794151 , in the business of writing things like Leveraging Wikidata To Gain A Google Knowledge Graph Result (May 1, 2015) " How can marketers leverage Wikidata to help a business become an entity and gain a Knowledge Graph result? I have personally had success with gaining Knowledge Graph entries for my clients and myself. Below, I have outlined the steps you can take to both gain and enhance a Knowledge Graph result. " In other words: SEO Spammer. With the plan to professionally spam Wikidata, already advertising his services. And since he is editing/creating pages despite a pertinent COI, he is violating the ToS and should be blocked. -- Atlasowa ( talk ) 01:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC) I didn't say that this item is notable or shouldn't be deleted. Only the argument "no Wikipedia article" -> "not notable on Wikidata" is wrong as there are also valid items on Wikidata without having a Wikipedia article. We have to check if the "high authority mentions in the press" fulfill the required "serious and publicly available references" required by the guideline. If they aren't valid, we have to delete that item. If you think the notability criterias should be stricter, we have to change the guideline by an RFC. -- Bene* t a l k 09:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) You are right Bene*. My answer was a bit to short-sighted. A Wikipedia link isn't always necessary. There are enough items without a Wikipedia link that are notable. It would be nice if Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs ) could provide us with independent sources that help provide the notability of this company. A freebase item created by a user with the same username as the user that created the Wikidata item isn't an independent source. Mbch331 ( talk ) 09:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) You are right Bene*. My answer was a bit to short-sighted. A Wikipedia link isn't always necessary. There are enough items without a Wikipedia link that are notable. It would be nice if Tonye ( talk • contribs • logs ) could provide us with independent sources that help provide the notability of this company. A freebase item created by a user with the same username as the user that created the Wikidata item isn't an independent source. Mbch331 ( talk ) 09:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)