User talk:Pburka/Archive 3

William Bunch Fullingim and Nancy Ellen Watson
Regarding your "removal" of the marriage entry for William Bunch Fullingim and Nancy Ellen Watson.. you are very mistaken. Both he and Nanny Watson Fullingim appear in the social security death index. We also have the ORIGINAL marriage document, from Denton co, Texas, dated in August of 1879. Nannie Fullingim United States Social Security Death Index Age	103 Given Name	Nannie Surname	Fullingim Birth Date	01 Nov 1861 State	Oklahoma Event Date	Apr 1964

William Fullingim United States Social Security Death Index Age	110 Given Name	William Surname	Fullingim Birth Date	07 Jul 1855 State	Oklahoma Event Date	Aug 1965

Dr. J. Michael Fullingim has been researching the Fullingim family for over 40 yrs.. the findagrave entry is completely supported. I will send you a copy of the marriage license, if you need that. W A Fullingim mentioned in the record of W A Fullingim and Nannie Watson Name	W A Fullingim Titles and Terms	Mr Event Type	Marriage Event Date	11 Aug 1879 Event Place	Denton, Texas, United States Spouse's Name	Nannie Watson Spouse's Titles and Terms	Miss

this marriage needs to be restored to the wikipedia list. Thank you, Wendy Caldwell

Wendy Caldwell (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Wendy - I'd be happy to re-add the marriage if you have a reliable sources which describe the record set by the marriage. All the documents you've cited are primary sources, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Unless reliable sources describe their marriage as a record, it doesn't belong here. I don't doubt that the marriage was real, but WP:TRUTH is not sufficient basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

forgive me, I am not normally a wikipedia user. With respect, your reply seems completely contradictory. When discussing length of a marriage, a PUBLISHED source is that which would be considered unreliable. This is a constant issue with genealogy.. so called "published" sources fail to validate by a PROVABLE source. In fct.. a news article, claiming an 82 marriage as "being a record" (which was false) is what led me back to the wiki page that I knew had our Fullingims, and how I found out you had removed it. Using your explanation.. ALL MARRIAGES other than the single longest marriage at the top.. would be subject to removal. It is the only "longest" record. All of the others are long time marriages, with dates, and ranked in order by length of marriage. Not by being any 'record'. Nor am I attempting to use wiki for research. Again.. with all respect.. we HAVE the original research, to validate the dates/ info. Any secondary (published) source is, in reality, the one that is unreliable. In genealogy, this is a constant conflict. Genealogy may not be your normal focus. IF you have a LIST, described as "longest marriages", then I contend that the only measure of reliability ..would be primary sources that confirm the length of marriage. Newspaper articles are notorious for errors. I reviewed the commentary on "truth" being a subjective description, subject to opinion. I don't think that is a valid point, if the topic is a list, of factual dates and information. The date of the marriage is factual (not opinion), as are the dates of death for both Uncle Bunch and Nannie. Dates of birth are not always verifiable, without legal records. The marriage and death dates are both backed by legal records. I respectfully disagree that a published source is more reliable than those. Wendy Caldwell (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Wendy, thanks for replying. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. This is explicitly stated in our NOTGENEALOGY policy. Secondly, there can clearly be more than one record. For a similar example, please see Men's 100 metres world record progression. Every couple in List of people with the longest marriages is documented as setting a record of some kind. They might have been the oldest married couple in the world, the longest married couple in their country at the time, or even the eighth longest marriage in the United States. You might dispute those records, but the fact remains that independent sources have said that they are records. If you have original research documenting a record, I urge you to contact a legitimate publisher such as a newspaper, author or maybe Guinness to publish that record. Once it's been published in a reliable source, it can be included in Wikipedia. Until then, it's your own original research and cannot be published here. Again, I don't doubt the accuracy of your claim, but I urge you to review our policy on WP:original research to understand why Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish this. Pburka (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Strewn Winery


A tag has been placed on Strewn Winery, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nature Cancer and Nature Food PROD Removal
Thank you for removing the proposed deletion of the page Nature Cancer created by me. I have also created another such page Nature Food which has also been subject to an unfair campaign of PROD! I would appreciate it if you could discuss your reasoning with the person proposing deletion on the latter page as well, as they do not seem to accept why I think the journal deserves a page.

Amir.azhieh (talk) 04:46, 02 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the pages are notable. Nature has over 100 journals, and they're probably not all notable. To demonstrate notability, you need to show that Nature Cancer has been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I removed the PROD because the nominator had failed to follow WP:BEFORE, which requires that alternatives to deletion be considered. In this case, I think the pages could easily be merged into Nature Publishing Group. Instead of creating pages for each journal, why not create a List of Nature Publishing Group journals as a place to consolidate basic information about all of the journals? Pburka (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible that the Nature Food discussion will result in a consensus to merge. Since you're interested in this topic, would you consider starting a draft of a list of Nature publications? I'd be happy to offer some guidance. Pburka (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Richard Sadler
Hi - thanks for locating a source. For me, the URL you added when deprodding is a dead link, think the book may not be available in my region. Would you mind adding the source to the article please? Thanks for your help. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Deprod of Cornelia Strong College‎?
You removed the proposed deletion of Cornelia Strong College‎ with an edit summary stating that the "article could be merged into University of North Carolina at Greensboro." The college article only has two sources, neither of which are independent (they're both from the university itself). The college is also already included in the university's article. So exactly what do you think should be merged from the college article into the university article? ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a redirect for you. Now anyone searching for Cornelia Strong College‎ will be directed to the appropriate section in the university article, and its history is preserved if anyone wishes to resurrect and improve the standalone article. See WP:ATD for other alternatives to deletion. pburka (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Source
Hi now that the AfD is closed for Triple The Mogul, I want to ask you if you would consider this a reliable source https://allhiphop.com/music/sean-kingston-talks-music-more-with-triple-visit-soulja-boy-s-house-video-cHDFlwEuyEaB_3_Pbr5zVQ just trying to understand the process as I’m a Wikipedia amateur. Thanks ballin4ever3 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's probably a reliable source, assuming there's some editorial oversight, but do you think it's significant coverage, or does it simply contribute to verifiability? pburka (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Broken Arrows (film)
Hey, where did you find sources for Broken Arrows? I'm not coming up with any which is why I proded it. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the film's name is not very unique, I added in the director's name and Google came up with, e.g. SF Gate, Baltimore Sun, and Gawker. The film might still be nonnotable, but I think a more thorough discussion is warranted. pburka (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This helps, thanks! BOVINEBOY 2008 21:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Account cleanup
Hello. May I request your help and also responding to your alert as I tried to clean up an account as a COI was raised regarding it. However, when I tried to remove the alert I got a message from you that I shouldn’t do that. So may I ask how to go about it. Actually I knew the details to be correct since I had come across the individual during professional capacity while I was working out of a diplomatic assignment in London. Durdana Ansari. The details are very genuine and seeing the alert I throughly I should clean it up as was alerted. Also the alert said if the queries are removed the alert can be taken off. However since you alerted I thought best to request you and seek your advice. Regards and thanks. Hba Hba5921 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lupe
Hey great work on the article and the AfD responses. And it is topical. -- Green  C  01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm still astonished someone thought its deletion would be uncontroversial. pburka (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Tlhabi
No need to thank. I enjoyed the page. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mahajan
Can I know why did you deprod the nomination? Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs) 10:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The deletion rationale was "Subject is notable though, but couldn't find any source on Google, and the talk page messages show that the article contains factually wrong info. Not sure how to improve it." In my opinion, this isn't a valid reason to delete an article. You stated that the subject is notable, and we only delete topics that aren't notable. If there are factual errors, then they can be fixed by correcting or removing them. pburka (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Reason no. 6 and 7 in the stated reasons for deletion are also valid reasons for deleting an article. I don't see anyone working on the article. The user who created this article is inactive for a decade. I can't find any source on the google. The talk page messages are serious issues, and there is no way I can find out what's true about the subject. Hence, I cannot improve it. So, I think it's better if it is deleted. Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs)  15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't say that in your rationale! If you believe it's a hoax or not verifiable, then say so in the nomination. Instead you said it was notable, but had errors, and I based my action on that. You're welcome to nominate it for WP:AFD with a clear rationale. pburka (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , okay but should I undo your edit to renominate it? Because Twinkle is showing error as it was nominated before. Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs)   Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs)  17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia has three deletion processes: speedy, PROD, and AFD. Once an article has been dePRODded it can never be proposed for noncontroversial deletion again. You have to open a deletion discussion in WP:AFD. pburka (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Alright. I opened a dwletion discussion there. Thanks
 * Lightbluerain ❄ (Talk | contribs) 11:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Jui Juis
Thanks for taking a look at Jui Juis. Have you located any reliable sources? All you’ve linked to is a Thai Wikipedia that doesn’t have any live and reliable sources, it seems. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that the reliable sources on that page were dead. However I expect that the contents of those links (including MTV) can be recovered from google or archive.org. Of course it's possible that it's an elaborate hoax, but that's usually not the case. pburka (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

List of slave owners
Good work on adding references and material to the article! I still have doubts about the desirability of the article, but it is always good to see things properly referenced.

BTW: If you take another look at the Barbarossa article, it says that he enslaved the inhabitants of Corfu while an Ottoman admiral. Would you consider that sufficient? Brianyoumans (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I think that's sufficient given the current scope of the list. You might have noticed that I started a discussion on the talk page about including heads of state or people acting under state power (vs. personal slave ownership). I'm not sure whether or not we should exclude people who used (or use) slave or forced labor as state officials, and Barbarossa might fit that description. pburka (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Glentworth, Saskatchewan
Hey, I'm all for Glentworth, Saskatchewan staying if a citation is provided (hence the PROD) although I couldn't find one, as you've readded the article text can you provide one? FozzieHey (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there some question about the hamlet's existence? Tourism Saskatchewan has an entry for it: https://www.tourismsaskatchewan.com/community/69/glentworth. Apparently it's "The Heart of the West." It's not impossible that I've even driven through it! pburka (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That it's legally recognised since you've already mentioned WP:GEOLAND and you've stated that it's legally recognised, can you add a citation for that? (I'd imagine Saskatchewan would have a list for these?) FozzieHey (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PROD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. I invite you to improve the article yourself rather than creating work for other editors to research and remove PRODs from topics which would be controversial if brought to AFD. pburka (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've looked for sources that it's legally recognised and have found none, hence the PROD to see if the original creator could provide some, now you've said yourself it's legally recognised so can you just add the citation? I'd rather not do an AfD if there's a simple citation that can be added that I may have missed seeing as you seem more experienced with the area. FozzieHey (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble assuming good faith, since your nomination didn't mention your surprising claim that it's not a legal settlement. The town has a post office, an entry in Tourism Saskatchewan, and entry in Our Towns: Saskatchewan Communities from Abbey to Zenon Park, a museum, a library, and 49 hits on Google Scholar. If you really believe this will be an uncontroversial deletion, please take to it AFD and we can see. pburka (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great! Now can you add a citation with that information? I'm not trying to get this deleted if it's legally recognised I just want a single citation to prove that it is, I don't see why you're assuming bad faith when you have all of this proof you just haven't added it yet. FozzieHey (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One again I refer you to WP:NOTCLEANUP. I've already done more work on your behalf than I wish to. I'm not replying to further messages on this topic. pburka (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Austria
Could you please provide a reference for your claim that there ever was a Kingdom of Austria? I live in Austria and I have never heard of such a thing. Archduchy, yes, Empire, yes, Kingdom? Those internal links need to be checked – I was made aware of the existence of the redirect page through this edit, which borders on vandalism. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it actually existed is, of course, irrelevant. The important thing is that the name appears in reliable sources, such as The Almanac of World War I, Soldier and Scholar: Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and the Civil War and Human Heredity: Principles and Issues. These, and the incoming links, indicate that deletion would likely attract some controversy. pburka (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're sure that these are wrong, instead of deleting, why not just tag the redirect with Template:R from incorrect name? pburka (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is irrelevant whether it existed or not. We can't just make things up. The references you give are pretty weak, except for the first one, maybe. Anyway, that template looks like a good compromise. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you search on Google Books there are a lot of uses of the name, and more for "Austrian Kingdom", as far back as the 18th century: whether Austria (or the Habsburgs) ever called it a kingdom is unclear, but others have. Regardless, it's just a redirect page, which is primarily an aid to navigation, and I think it's a very plausible search term. Adding the template will help ensure that any links to the redirect will be flagged for review, too. pburka (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Your deprods
"Part of a notable trilogy by a notable author. Consider merging, perhaps." To what, pray? As it happens, Malley's page has already been deleted three times, something of which I'm sure you were aware before claiming that there was a "notable author" involved. I'd be very interested in what you think the valid redirect target would be.   Ravenswing     23:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources analyzing her books are easily found on Google Scholar, so I presume that the author is notable. I'm not sure what conspiracy you're imagining, but I didn't know her page had been deleted. From what I can see, it was deleted speedily in 2015, as a copyvio in 2009, and for unclear reasons in 2008: there's no evidence that there's ever been an AFD to discuss her notability, which I expect she would pass. If you don't feel like improving the encyclopedia by adding a page for the author, the obvious merge target would be the first book in the trilogy. pburka (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm improving the encyclopedia by clearing out junk notability tagged for over a decade. How about you add a page for the author?   Ravenswing      10:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue with other editors then use AFD. PROD should only be used for obviously non-controversial deletions, and these articles aren't that. Please don't post on my talk page again. pburka (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

''For future reference, this conversation was about The Resistance (Malley novel). pburka (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)''

Second opinion
Hi pburka! I've appreciated your helpful deprods of some articles I've prodded recently, and wondered if I could get a second opinion on Margret A. Treiber (I'm pretty sure the name really is "Margret", not "Margaret"). I think it fails WP:NAUTHOR, but you've found literary sources I've overlooked so I'm wondering if I'm missing something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out! The article claims she's been written about in the Naples Daily News, so that's one place to search: unfortunately it appears that she wrote the article. I'd also check the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (which doesn't have much more about her). Her work is quite recent and she's American, so we can expect that any good sources would be on-line. I also checked her website to see if it links to more coverage. It shows that she's included in a Who's Who of Emerging Writers 2020, but I don't see any reviews or awards linked on her website. I think this article is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, but if you're not certain something will be noncontroversial it never hurts to use AfD instead of PROD. pburka (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks :) Really appreciate your detailed reply. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Recognition (EP)
Does Recognition (EP) qualify for deletion? It is unsourced and has few edits to it. Ironically, it does not have a lot of recognition. I can't find much about it online, and the band never charted anywhere. Also, all the tracks were on Vocabulary (album).Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by! I'm not familiar with the band nor am I active in music projects, but being unsourced isn't particularly relevant and having few edits is completely irrelevant. It's a difficult topic to search for because both the album and band name are very generic, so there are lots of spurious hits and there might be some good ones we're missing. In general, I would never be in favor of deleting a verifiable album from a notable band when there are always reasonable alternatives to deletion, such as redirecting to the band's page. (Redirecting should be done with some caution, as there's even less oversight than PROD.) As always, if you think it might be controversial, you should use WP:AFD. pburka (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting your input!
Hi Pburka, could you please check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Mary_Francine_Whittle which has been proposed for deletion? I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Jon Hess (director) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jon Hess (director) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jon Hess (director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Collision (computer science)
Hi! Concerning my deletion request for the redirect Collision (computer science), what should I use instead of ? Thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I'd ask if it needs to be deleted. The existing redirect is correct and harmless, in my opinion. If you still want to delete it, you should follow the steps on WP:R. pburka (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized that there are 115 pages that link to Collision (computer science)! Deleting it would be highly disruptive! I think that (a) you need to update all those links, first, and (b) the redirect should be left in place indefinitely, for historical reasons. You might consider changing it from a redirect to a disambiguation page, instead (but only after the existing links are fixed.) pburka (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you answers. My problem is that a more general page shouldn't redirect to a less general one; as a non-computer-science example, redirecting Dog to Collie would be harmful. Maybe turning Collision (computer science) into a DAB page is the best solution; after all, there are hash collisions, and bus collisions (and maybe more types) in CS. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I changed collision (computer science) to hash collision (computer science), and turned the former into a DAB page. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks! pburka (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Carry Greenham Home
Hi, I noticed with this edit [] that you removed the PROD for this article, stating that "Deprod. Award-winning film. Seems to be relatively well covered by books."

However, you left the "Notability" tag. If you think the film is notable enough to not be deleted, then the notability tag should have been removed as well. Can I ask why you left the tag, yet deleted the PROD?

As long as the notability tag remains on the article, either I or someone else will put if up for deletion under AfD as there are several editors that patrol the notability tag and either remove them if we can find sources, or put the article up for deletion...first through PROD and then through AfD if the tag is removed without new sources being added. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This request feels an awful lot like WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I saw a suspicious PROD, did some quick research, determined that significant coverage existed, removed the PROD, and moved on. If you have a specific interest in the article, I encourage you to improve it yourself. pburka (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds more like you don't think the topic is notable either. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprod
Hey Pburka,

I saw you removed a WP:BLPPROD tag on Rachel Costello. I'm just wondering which link you saw that you consider a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. Perhaps I missed something, so I would like to know before I use this tag again in the future. Thanks! Mbdfar (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed the prod because sources were present, even if low quality. According to WP:BLPPROD, "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." Honestly, I didn't watch the videos, but I assume that she appears in them. pburka (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think the article is eligible for the tag. None of the written sources mention the subject at all (unless I'm missing something), and if you would watch the videos, it is impossible to tell. They are home videos without commentary, and the players don't even have names on their jerseys. No sources at all seem to support any statements made about the person in the biography.Mbdfar (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, in that case. I had assumed you weren't counting the external links as sources and didn't look at them as closely as I should have. I think it's ok to put the tag back, or use the normal prod tag. pburka (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Alissa Wykes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alissa Wykes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alissa Wykes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Deprod
Hi pburka. I noticed your recent deprod of Phillips (constructor). FYI, Turner (constructor), Schroeder (constructor) and Sherman (constructor) have also been prodded. I've been reluctant to deprod them myself since I created the articles and it felt like a kind of conflict of interest, but I have no objection if you want to deprod them. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Racing is a bit of a personal interest but outside of my usual Wikipedia interests: I just stumbled across this one. In my opinion, any constructor that's competed at the Indy 500 is notable per WP:NMOTORSPORT, although strictly speaking the guideline only applies to people. As far as I'm aware, there's no COI issue with deprodding: it's even explicitly called out that the author can remove the tag ("...when the objection is from the article's creator"). However, I would encourage you to add some references to reliable sources to the pages after you deprod them. pburka (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Good luck! FYI, if an article has already been deleted via PROD and you want to get it back, you can WP:REFUND it. It's a low-friction process and valid refunds are never denied. pburka (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DH brought up the deprod issue at the American Open Wheel WikiProject and I commented that I would support deprod for constructors who raced in the Indy 500. I'm an admin so I restored two of these articles that had been deleted and placed them in draftspace. My main concern for restoring is if the requester will follow through and do the work. I'm not concerned about the work being done for these 2 articles with our long history!  Royal broil  04:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Candidate notability
I was wondering if are interested in looking at my attempt to describe when a political candidate might be notable. I am open to feedback with the hope that we can have some clarity before US campaigns begin in earnest later this fall for the 2022 elections --Enos733 (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Gina M. Biegel
Hi, just to understand your rationale, why would you say this subject is notable? The only sources are a publisher trying to sell books, and the person's own websites and promotion. I don't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Thanks, Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar indicates she's been cited 4362 times and has an h-index of 11. I think that's quite high for her field, and there's a reasonable chance she'd pass scrutiny under WP:NPROF. pburka (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. If you reckon the subject satisfies criterion 1, and the rationale rests on the h-index, the guideline also says this: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I believe psychology tends to have lower citation rates than other fields. I'm not (at this point) arguing that she's notable: I'm arguing that deletion is unlikely to be uncontroversial, so the PROD process shouldn't be used. pburka (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I just now got the joke
EEng 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Etiquette
As someone who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia I am sure you already know of the accepted etiquette on Wikipedia that you do not: 1) edit other people's comments 2) delete other people's comments unless it is vandalism or purely disruptive. It is common for people to leave comments after a closed discussion if they weren't able to participate in time or to oppose an early close. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not common at all, and it directly contradicts the instructions in the close template. If you want to reopen the discussion, do it elsewhere: don't add comments to a closed discussion. pburka (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're free to delete my post-Discussion comments to Mabuska's post. Seems, I usually can't do anything right, at times. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Somebody's got to have the last word! pburka (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll put it down to your lack of experience in the more heated aspects of the Irish and British topic area, a topic area where the vast majority of my editing has been done whereas in 15 years I have rarely if ever seen you involved in. Like in 15 years, or 16 if we start from your signup, we've only both edited the same pages on this site on just 19 occasions, 5 of which are user talk pages including this one. I've been quite quiet this past four years and yet my talk contributions are still triple your own, so when I say it is common - or was seeing as I have been quite quiet in recent years - it is/was common in my experience, at least in that topic area anyways. Mabuska (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)