Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pennsylvania. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pennsylvania|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pennsylvania. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Pennsylvania

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ with consent of article creator and virtually no other edits, so essentially a G7. Star Mississippi 00:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beck Strommer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an American figure skater, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I located was probably this. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which say that SIGCOV is likely to exist. I was unable to find any. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I am only finding trivial mentions such as [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All junior level except a local competition, lacks significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Summer Championships are an international competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A search in multiple newspaper archives failed to come up with anything of note. Let'srun (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not come close to meeting notability guidelines and only had passing media mentions. Fails to have a requisite number of RS mentions of substance. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's fine if it gets deleted. I've saved the coding and can reconstruct the article in the future if and when circumstances improve. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruse of Fools

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, deleted in 2007 at AfD but recreated. I can’t see any sources that would make it pass WP:NMUSIC. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Pennsylvania. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing's changed since the previous deletion. I've checked Rock's Back Pages via Wikipedia library for sources and found nothing. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The band got a video played but attracted little media coverage in their time, and now they are only visible in various retail and streaming services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no coverage to be found for this musical group. I don't see anything in Gnews, books or scholar... Nothing even comes up during a normal google search. The sources used now in the article are streaming sites and a concert venue, simply not enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLEB-LP

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. C F A 💬 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list No grounds for a standalone article with the available sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: Another remnant of the looser non-GNG inclusion standards of 2009 in this topic area, which at times seemed to be more about existence (which is not, and has nothing to do with, notability) than the significant coverage required by the GNG. If SIGCOV existed (as opposed to the usual FCC databases, and brief mentions [that aren't currently in the article, but probably wouldn't be SIGCOV anyway]), it would have turned up by now; under today's standards, we no longer need anything more than an {{R to list entry}} here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Allentown mayoral election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this will be thorough on this one, since lots of these mayoral election deletions have ended as trainwrecks for me. This article is a vialation of WP:NEVENT, as it fails to have significant lasting coverage that fails to qualify. THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC NOTABILITY FOR MAYORAL ELECTIONS, as shown here, here, here, here, and here of articles of similar size or larger to Allentown.

A quick WP:BEFORE fails to find any significant lasting coverage as well on Google or ProQuest.

Now, it looks like the article is long, so it must have good sources? Not to establish notability. Let's see if any of these sources match the description of "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." per WP:EVENT.

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:1ctinus**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.mcall.com/2016/10/14/frank-fischl-decorated-air-force-pilot-and-former-allentown-mayor-dies-at-89/	~		Local obituary, mentions the election for a single sentence	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/284052961/	~		WP:ROUTINE mill coverage about a TV program/debate	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/280057542/	~	?	WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/08/12/Political-contribution-from-the-grave/1905366436800/			No coverage at all? The citation says "Daddona's unsuccessful 1969 campaign", not 1977. Either way, its barely lasting coverage, just an offhand sentence in a UPI article.	✘ No
https://www.mcall.com/2004/12/12/whatever-became-of-former-allentown-mayor-frank-fischl/			Scope of the coverage of the election in the article is "Fischl beat out incumbent Joe Daddona. Daddona later succeeded Fischl, who didn’t seek a second term.". While it is lasting, this is not significant.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/283995190/			NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION, BUT ABOUT FISCH DECLINING TO RERUN	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If deletion seems too much, I propose two alternatives:

Merge all the Allentown mayoral election articles for future maintainability and navigability
(which is better in my opinion). Redirect to Frank Fischl, which most of the coverage seems to be on.

Before I end, a quick note to administrators and voters: please remember to use actual Wikipedia policy instead of using or endorsing arguments like "I like Pennsylvania history, so this must be important" or "this is useful information". These are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia is not a database, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I am limiting this to one article at a time to avoid a trainwreck nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on precedent you can't just delete one of the Allentown elections. you'd have to delete all of them. Scu ba (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK and a procedural close. This happened previously -1ctinus📝🗨 04:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that as an Allentown election, it is notable enough to warrant a page. You'd have to challenge Allentown, the third largest city in Pennsylvania, as not being notable enough to have it's election pages exist. Scu ba (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scu ba: I don't agree with that at all. It is appropriate to evaluate each election article on its own merits. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of it's current citations, Allentown is the third largest city in Pennslyvania and as due to this it's elections are notable enough to warrant a page. should we go and delete the 2009, 1997, 1993 or really any pre 21st century buffalo election pages? Deleting election pages for major municipalities breaks precedent. Scu ba (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listed articles that clearly show that there is no precedent for municipal elections to be inherently notable in the top. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The elections you listed where for minor cities, such as Fontana, California, which is the 21st largest city in California. Allentown is the 3rd largest city in Pennslyvania. There is no consensus that minor towns elections are notable enough, however, major cities warrant their elections having pages. Scu ba (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fontana CA is still a larger town than Allentown by over 90,000 residents. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(and the answer for the Buffalo elections is they probably aren’t notable if they lack significant coverage.) -1ctinus📝🗨 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. they're notable because they're elections in Buffalo, the 2nd largest city in NY. Scu ba (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy states that an election is notable automatically because it’s a large city? There is none to my knowledge. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No jurisdiction gets a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level election which received no clear coverage from outside its local area. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania

Contents

Pennsylvania

Beck Strommer

Ruse of Fools

WLEB-LP

1977 Allentown mayoral election

Proposed deletions