Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 237: Line 237:

::::::1) [[WP:WAX]]

::::::1) [[WP:WAX]]

::::::2) I think one issue people are likely to raise is this is a semi-interview of sorts and so not independent. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

::::::2) I think one issue people are likely to raise is this is a semi-interview of sorts and so not independent. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 08:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

::::::A [[WP:BLOG]] can be reliable for article content, but at the same time not necessarily [[WP:N]]-good. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I feel suspicious about it is that in the URL, it is misspelled as BFDO in the URL and it once misspelled BFDI as BDFI. Although there is a webpage where you can contact them to get the typo fixed, I don’t know how long it will take for them to reply since The Citizen is a South African website and I live in the United States. Also, this leaves me with a few questions; Can someone read an online newspaper if it’s from a foreign country? Can a source still be reliable if there’s a few or a couple of spelling mistakes? And speaking of the aforementioned question, are there any other reliable sources that have spelling mistakes in them? (NOTE: If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s this link) DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Why_is_BFDI_not_on_Wikipedia?/Archive_5#New_source. In context (does it help with WP:N?) I think it’s ok. Fwiw, it has some WP-presence:[3].
“Can a source still be reliable if there’s a few or a couple of spelling mistakes?” Absolutely. WP:RS doesn’t mean perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If “no spelling mistakes” is to be the standard then we would be left with very few reliable sources. The Grauniad would obviously go. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m told an English paper once reported that 30 000 pigs had drowned and floated down a river. The farmer (maybe with a bit of an accent) had actually told the reporter “30 sows and pigs.” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, but I finally understand now and thanks for the self-demonstration. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be disrespectful at all with anyone, and I do think that BFDI does have this notability problem (which is kind of sad but probably will take some months or years to change)…

But wouldn’t Inanimate Insanity have a better chance at actually having an article? It’s a more “serious” show than BFDI is (which actually helped them to get a little more traction, expectation and their movie);
Its first season was crowdfunded by the Animation Nation Army (by Christian Potenza out of all people, with the initiative having some news about it in Canada and being proved to be linked to Inanimate Insanity’s start);
And it did have a theatrical movie release in two countries (with its synopse and informations about the screenings on their relative pages), along with a few other minor mentions (which i do know don’t mean much for notability itself).

Thank you.Apocon (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t matter how many movies there are. Despite how I think it should work, the rules require notibily to be determined by the amount of other sources talking about the topic, no matter how important or popular that thing may actually be. 2007GabrielT (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Inanimate Insanity might have a better claim to fame, let’s make another source assessment table. (feel free to add more sources to it) – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has recently been announced that a spin off show of bfdi is going to be added to theathers pretty soon. I feel like that’s a pretty big deal and not something to be ignored. I feel like the show getting a page should be considered, at least if it does well and gets coverage, which I think is likely. OkDendy (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is only the debut of a new episode of the newest season. But yes, unless there is sufficient independent and reliable sources, BFDI will not be on Wikipedia. Yet.
hi (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may get enough sources
Though is that recent source in the source assessment reliable enough? Animalsrule2024 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A film based on BFDI being released to theaters actually doesn’t change anything in of itself. Sources are still required, and for that film, that’d require things like critic reviews. That would also make that specific movie notable, but not BFDI itself, because notability is not inherited. Even if the film gained several individual critic reviews and was notable itself, BFDI itself would remain non-notable. BTW, the announcement of a BFDI spin-off being released into theaters has not garnered any coverage, which while insufficient to establish notability on its own anyways, does not paint a good picture. λ NegativeMP1 18:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly relevant information I’m sharing, but it isn’t a spinoff, it’s just the debut of a new episode in the most recent season. But yes, it shouldn’t have an article yet until there are sufficient sources.
hi (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, actually. It’s not a spin off, it’s the twentieth episode of the fifth season. The R 1.0 AUCCC (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they assumed that from the OP, though. hi (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah wait i didn’t see who this was actually replying to sorry hi (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that TPOT 20 is being released in several AMC theaters reminds me of Marcel the Shell with Shoes On, which had a most similar situation. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with BFDI isn’t directly because it’s web-based as opposed to being in theatres. It’s that journalists have no idea the series exists. There’s nobody doing a kid’s web entertainment beat. The only reason the Skibidi Toilet article exists is because one viral tweet about it by a Twitter-famous poster got onto the timelines of people who write for “geek culture” sites like the Daily Dot and Kotaku.
If you want a BFDI article, your best bet is to find the journalist part of Twitter and push it into there. They’re all terminally online and follow similar people, so their view of what’s notable consists entirely on what goes viral in their circle. Find an irony poisoned “poaster” with 50k followers to tweet about it (perhaps even the fight over this article), raise money to get Pop Crave/The Pop Tingz to post about it, intentionally make a terrible BFDI take to bait Twitter into making you the “main character”. A Wikipedia article will come from news coverage. Ibeenyoung87 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They could insert a Donald Trump character, that tends to get coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count as reliable? I do see true information on the page but is it all true? I dont think ive read the whole page Animalsrule2024 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bfdi is getting a movie, so will it get a page now that’s it’s coming to actual theaters? Simplyshows (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If enough reliable, independent sources cover it. They’ll (most likely) have to cover the whole series, not just the movie. The R 1.0 AUCCC (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they will have to cover the whole series, since TPOT 20 is one of the many episodes of BFDI, and thus is based off of the former, even if it is theatrical, which could mean BFDI’s best chance of getting enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Pinhead123555 (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t a movie, it is actually a new episode that debuts in theater. However, unless there is significant news coverage that makes BFDI notable, it will not have an article.
Even then, it is more likely that if there is news coverage, it will be about the episode itself (BFDI:TPOT 20), meaning a BFDI related article is possible, but I don’t see anything about a standalone BFDI article itself.
Also, side tangent, but there was a post on the BFDI Wiki on Fandom (which I am active on) about this very thread, which I suspect may have been posted there to gather support for a post on a talk page that was made for the sole purpose of brownie points. Maybe I’m crazy, I probably am, just wanted to bring that up.
hi (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if they are trustworthy just wanted to share this
https://www.fantasylandnews.com/2025/09/20/jacknjellify-bfdi-creators-surprise-fans-with-battle-for-dream-island-the-power-of-two-episode-20-amc-screening/ APanFluteFan (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it to the source assessment table, and a subsequent editor has assessed its coverage as not being significant enough to help towards GNG compliance. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also decide on the source from last month if its reliable or not, from what i read the information is true but i havent read the whole page so idk Animalsrule2024 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the source assessment table one of the detractions for “Significant coverage” is “Three sentences are about BFDI at large, the remaining little coverage is about an upcoming screening for a specific episode.”
Wouldn’t this mean that this would be “Significant coverage” for specifically a TPOT 20 article even if Battle for Dream Island the series itself did not get significant coverage? Obviously this would only apply if a bunch of more sources start covering TPOT 20 in the same way as Fantasy Land News but that is something. ZestySourBoy (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source. It’s abundantly clear that it does not meet significant coverage for TPOT 20, an episode which currently does not exist, either. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a blog ran by two people (see [4]) which may fall under WP:BLOG. “About Us” page doesn’t give much food for thought in regards to how good their quality control is, i.e. whether or not they fact check anything and how well they do that. Sources with a more thorough history of trustworthiness is more desirable. Jurta talk/contribs 11:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O’Donnell mentioned BFDI again in 2025:

2600:1700:AB90:45AF:4809:9C41:629E:3A1F (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not even an editor, but these are about Rosie O’Donnell’s Child, not BFDI. The article at least needs significant coverage, they literally only say BFDI’s name three times and don’t even explain what it is. 2A01:599:B21:4F32:D82C:E1E4:9404:40A7 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just edited a talkpage, so now you’re an editor 😉 Welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Battle for Dream Island only has three one-off mentions here without elaboration. Note that the AOL article is the same as the People article (syndication), so these articles will be treated as one. Jurta talk/contribs 19:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bringing up another article here, but I feel that the bias against BFDI is incredibly obvious as an adult fan (not staff on any object show).
And I feel I need to provide an example: Why is Zoophobia by Vivziepop allowed a page when the majority of sources cited are Tumblr, Youtube videos by Viv, and posts to independent furry blog websites? This clearly breaks the notability requirements outlined on BFDI related pages, yet goes ignored.
I get that early into BFDI’s lifespan there was a lot of vandalism from young editors, but that was years ago, and is not a problem unique to BFDI. Children will disrupt online activities wherever they go regardless of subject, just look at the infamous example of the teenage Scots editor.
I feel that the current policy is outdated, and resources used to keep BFDI off the site would be better spent moderating elsewhere. You could argue that both could be moderated, but the fact remains that several pieces of non-BFDI content are being neglected in terms of verification solely because they aren’t BFDI.
This isn’t meant to be a “whataboutism”, I’m trying to acknowledge a clear bias at play here. It’s just really hard to point out bias without providing examples of differently biased subjects. 209.137.196.143 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you put your mind to it, you can imagine anything as a bias. The sky is the limit. But there is no bias here and this is in principle a whataboutism argument. Regarding the Viziepop example you show, I do not want to investigate the notability of that, but if it truly isn’t notable… well, you know what should be done with it. You also know what should be done to anything that is deemed not notable. Yes, there are plenty of subjects on Wikipedia that are probably not notable. We have articles for deletion for that and multiple running at any given point to determine such.
There is no bias towards BFDI in particular. The page discusses why things are this way in extreme detail yet people still believe there is a bias and that we “banned” BFDI. The only reason this page exists is because there was enough disruptive editing or fans trying to force BFDI onto Wikipedia, so an explanation had to be made. There is no BFDI ban, it is a consequence of Wikipedia’s notability policies, which are non-negotiable on this page (and I doubt you’d get much support proposing that notability shouldn’t require sources when requiring sources, in of itself, is a key Wikipedia policy). If people try erasing content about BFDI from things like filmographies and cite this essay as a reason, they shouldn’t. They may have other reasons that could be negotiated but this essay in of itself represents nothing besides an explanation of why a specific series that people frequently try to make an article for does not have one. λ NegativeMP1 22:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not just about the sources presently cited in the article – you can try searching for more sources to help establish ZooPhobia‘s notability. If you cannot find enough coverage out there, WP:AfD it is, as Negative said. Anyone can help clear the backlog of articles on possibly non-notable topics. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the only mentions of BFDI so far in mainspace are in the filmography sections of TomSka, jacksfilms, Rosie O’Donnell, and The Gregory Brothers. Although, I checked those mentions in said sections, and they only rely on primary sources. But this essay doesn’t apply to them, according to Negative. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One fan to another: there’s simply not many sources usable to establish notability for BFDI. We have these guidelines for a reason: to curb misinformation, even if that means having to abstain from covering some topics. Also, if you think Zoophobia is not notable then you can submit it for deletion via WP:AFD, as the others have said. Jurta talk/contribs 08:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this can be covered by reliable sources and maybe get put on Wikipedia.
the only source we have is https://www.fantasylandnews.com/2025/09/20/jacknjellify-bfdi-creators-surprise-fans-with-battle-for-dream-island-the-power-of-two-episode-20-amc-screening/, but I bet it isn’t notable 2605:A601:5557:8D00:4911:EA29:200B:C7B0 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Source_assessment/Battle_for_Dream_Island
The source you put was already put here before and it failed reliability and significant coverage checks, and does not qualify for general notability, just as others have said. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha jekyllthefabulous (speak, or you shall die) 22:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/790187316/the-creative-lead-animator-behind-jacknjellifys-the-power-of-two/ Radman the 12th (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t this already covered in the source assessment Thegoofhere (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Press release already covered in the source assessment as not being a suitable source. Jurta talk/contribs 16:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new Tpot episode is going to be shown in theaters specifically AMC franchises (United states only) does this count as being noticeable enough. 47.214.132.155 (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If theres sources then yes Animalsrule2024 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would need to be reliable sources with significant coverage of BFDI in general, not just a specific event. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes Animalsrule2024 (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5747554/ Tankfarter (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Thegoofhere (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is certainly a source…
that is unreliable, because it is user generated. See WP:IMDB and WP:CITEIMDB. AlphaBeta135talk 04:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is definitely not a reliable source. But it can be an external link. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following the AN discussion, Draft:Battle for Dream Island has been recreated by admin @FOARP. Posting here in case anyone is willing to improve it further. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it’s not obviously accepted that it’s allowed to exist yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw @FOARP, if this is kept you need to allow the talkpage to be recreated too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I know we don’t protect as a precaution, but a greylock might not be the worst idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to EC on both draft and talkpage. FOARP (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The series title is still on the title blacklist, meaning the talk page cannot be created by non-admins yet. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Just start the talkpage with a talkheader or something, will you? I get “Creation of this page (Draft talk:Battle for Dream Island) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors” Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FOARP (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have an article for the creators at the very least for the things they’ve done. They did voice acting for YouTube and I think all their animations even the non object related one are noticeable for people. Maybe this is one step closer to bfdi being on Wikipedia 47.214.132.155 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reliable sources that mainly talk about the said creators? AlphaBeta135talk 20:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let me check https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968 ,a tv tropes article,a instagram,a LinkedIn,their official YouTube channels,htwins and yeah that’s essentially it. 47.214.132.155 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Error. It’s actually https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/page/scale-universe-cary-michael-huang-california-high-school-15573968 47.214.132.155 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article from ABC News is one reliable source. Social media/networking sites (e.g., YouTube, Instagram, and LinkedIn) and other user-generated sites (e.g., TVTropes) are not reliable sources. Sources that are not independent of the said creators (e.g., HTwins) are also not usable sources. AlphaBeta135talk 22:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fox40.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/790187316/the-creative-lead-animator-behind-jacknjellifys-the-power-of-two/ QA995 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, this seems like the same press release as the AssosiatedPress one. QA995 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was very unlikely for the series to get an article at this point. However, what is the need for just a short draft article? There’s multiple other series that have got theater screenings before but aren’t even notable. Does this mean the series will get an Article? 112.208.79.200 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion at the Administrators’ noticeboard. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR version is that a draft is not, indeed never guaranteed to become an article. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huang hopes theatrical release will help BATTLE FOR DREAM ISLAND expand its huge YouTube audience from Comics Beat. I imagine this is reliable. While it has information specifically about the latest episode and a few quotes from Michael, it seems to have some usable secondary information on the series. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should be good for BFDI-facts in general (not accusations of murder etc), also looks independent to me. It can be argued to be a WP:BLOG (apparently it has an award for that) so if it helps with WP:N is more in the eyes of the beholder, but for reasonable content I think it fits per “Self-published sources may be considered reliable if…“. Fwiw, Russ Burlingame also writes for ScreenRant and is maybe cited in some books.[5]
I was in a discussion about Comics Beat at Talk:Sinfest/Archive_3#Another_blog. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have SIGCOVy articles from The Citizen, Plugged In and Comics Beat, I imagine we’re getting close to a new deletion review, maybe? ObserveOwl (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of what was the next proper step (for the editor who wants to take it). In context, DRV is probably better than just submitting for review, so I support that approach. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to @FOARP, if you want to have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why mainspacing wouldn’t be the next step. We don’t need a DELREV because we’re not trying to overturn the previous AFD. We’re also not recreating the deleted article. We’re creating a substantially different article with substantially different sourcing.
But before that, I’d like to see a consensus that the ComicsBeat article is a reliable, independent source for this topic. This is bound to be the thing that gets litigated here. I’d ping WP:RSN to ask them about it. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, DRV is reasonable per the ridiculous amount of backstory, and I don’t consider “directly to mainspace” a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELREV is an option per WP:DRVPURPOSE #5. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s an option, but the “backstory” is in large part just drama (and pointless drama at that) from years ago, source: the fact that some people thought it wise and proportionate to write a ~2,500 word essay about why we shouldn’t have an article about a little YouTube cartoon. I don’t see a reason to take a WP:BURO approach here, especially when there’s not even any reason to take it in our PAGs.
This entire debate on WP seems to have been conducted from the POV that this could never pass WP:GNG due to lack of IRS SIGCOV. That rather created a hostage to fortune. Once that sourcing exists (and I’m not entirely convinced yet that it does) then mainspace is the next place to go. If someone wants to raise an AFD at that point, that’s up to them, but there’s no reason to premptively AFD such an article ourselves.
I’ve pinged RSN to discuss the Comics Beat article. You can see the discussion here. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but “Battle for Dream Island” is on the title blacklist, so only an admin would be able to AFD it if it was moved to mainspace. So if it becomes a live article, it should probably be removed from the blacklist. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do that once its mainspaced. But for us to do that, we still need a WP:GNG pass, so we still need a second a source that is clear IRS SIGCOV. Let’s see if people can agree at RSN. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ComicsBeat is used on a source on various other Wikipedia pages. The discussion on the Sinfest talk page ended with ComicsBeat being used as a source, and the pages for Stan Lee and Tom Taylor both also use ComicsBeat sources. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding the inner workings of Wikipedia and how they handle source usage, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but with three previous use cases surely ComicsBeat is easily a reliable and independent source? ZestySourBoy (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:WAX
2) I think one issue people are likely to raise is this is a semi-interview of sorts and so not independent. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BLOG can be reliable for article content, but at the same time not necessarily WP:N-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top