Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 4: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:34, 4 January 2025 editJTtheOG (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers90,413 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage.Tag: Twinkle ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:35, 4 January 2025 edit undoLiz (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators766,262 edits Manual relistingNext edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sex, Love, Misery: New New York}} <!--Relisted-->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Geoff Tabin}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Geoff Tabin}}

Revision as of 03:35, 4 January 2025

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 9 (Thu) January 8 (Wed) January 7 (Tue) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 03	January 05 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/ sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Misplaced Pages articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus on whether or not the existing sources are sufficient and now there is a suggestion to Redirect or Merge that needs to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, both High on Films and Film Carnage is not reliable as they publish almost anything and the writers have no prior journalism experience! But Film Threat is reliable and BRWC is per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Joel Fisher has a BA in Writing + published work for other decent film review sites. Misplaced Pages:Notability#General_notability_guideline pass Bengele (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Something looks rather dodgy about this vote.

The user has emerged from 6 almost entirely inactive years to make virtually their first edits since they were 14 years old (according to their user page). This results in them arriving at a finely balanced AfD for a rather obscure film, the first time they have participated in an AfD. Given the history of the user who created this article (a promo SPA who has recently been indef blocked) there must surely be plausible concerns that some form of off-wiki canvassing has occurred. Axad12 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh one of my best friends is featured on it (Pretty cool right!) and she said to read it. Don't really see why this should be deleted though Bengele (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete/weak merge (nominator) I've taken a look through everyone's arguments, my overall opinion hasn't really changed as only one source is uncontroversially accepted as meeting criteria, whilst a second is questionable ("okayish") and the others don't pass muster per Erik's and Axad12's earlier comments.

The director's newly created article has been questioned as having similar sourcing/notability problems as this one - one single interview then swathes of film reviews.

It's also a bit concerning re. notability that the article was only created as a response to this AFD, not because of the inherent notability of the director himself (BTW I can see that an RS tag was added but then removed a few hours later from Alexander's article so I could be misunderstanding this).

If this is merged then I presume we'd need to include similar sections for all his other films, I'm happy to work on doing that if it happens. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To my knowledge, film reviews have always been an acceptable way of establishing notability for film directors. It's really no different than using book reviews to establish notability for an author. Their work received coverage in RS, so it's a sign of notability.

As for the topic of creating articles in response to an AfD, this is pretty common on Misplaced Pages. Someone nominates an article with shaky notability, but in the process someone notices that the main parent topic (in this case a director) has a stronger or even obvious case for notability. There's nothing wrong with creating an article on that main parent topic. Not only does this give Misplaced Pages a place to cover the sub-topic in a way that might not have otherwise been possible, but I've personally found that it tends to deter people from creating or re-creating articles on topics with shakier notability. I know that there are people out there with agendas, but not every article re-creation is done because of paid editing or similar. (Not that you were accusing me of that, just that I know that's a common reason some articles are re-created.) In this specific situation I saw that the director had received coverage for two of his other films, so I thought that a good compromise might be to create the director's article. The notability on this one is shaky, but with the director's article we have a way of ensuring that we have some coverage of the movie without focusing specifically on it.

However while I'm on the topic of the director article, I am a bit dismayed that someone went and cleaned out the filmography section and reduced it to just two movies. I can't help but feel like this was done as a way to emphasize how non-notable they felt the director was, particularly after the notability tag was removed. Their justification was a lack of sourcing for the filmography section. I would shrug that off, except that they also removed Sex, Love, Misery - which was sourced in the biography section - I'd just neglected to link the source to the filmography section - something that they themselves could have done rather than remove it. In any case, I've added sources for the short films, a primary and non-primary one. The non-primary one looks to be usable enough - other pages use it and it's also been used as a source in some academic/scholarly books like this and this.

I normally wouldn't go into so much depth about a separate article except that this is kind of related to the AfD. I just want to give a word of caution since I am worried about people being so bent on deletion that they go overboard. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

ReaderofthePack, thank you for adding the relevant sourcing to the Shannon Alexander article, which I think we both agree was required. I trust that you also agree with my other removal (re: Shannon Alexander not being "known for" making documentaries). My apologies if I have caused you any dismay.

Incidentally, I'm not bent on deletion of the Shannon Alexander article, I simply added a tag to it to say that the article may not have been sufficiently notable. I added that tag to invite comment from other users. If I had been bent on deletion there are several courses of action that I might have taken, e.g. referring the article to AfD, PRODding it, or requesting speedy deletion under A7. Since I did none of those things hopefully it is self-evident that I am not bent on deletion but simply wished to raise a legitimate concern about the potential notability.

For the record, I broadly agree with you that an article about Shannon Alexander is, per se, more notable than the articles about the individual films - and in that regard I'm very happy to thank you for going to the trouble of setting up that article.

Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours, Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - I am sorry that I assumed any bad faith on your part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep, there is significant coverage. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. Glancing over the article I agree that it's borderline by the criteria of WP:NFILM, but it doesn't obviously fail, and the information currently in the article seems to be well-sourced (at least in that it doesn't contain OR). I say we either merge into the director article or we stand down and give this article some time to grow. -- LWG 15:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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 NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Liz 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Article was moved back to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources are a user-generated site and a PDF of a bus schedule. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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 result was keep‎. Liz 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Geoff Tabin

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep :I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.

I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Misplaced Pages page uses his image!

If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per . ResonantDis_tortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The case for both WP:PROF#C5 (the named professorship) and WP:GNG (the media coverage of his cataract work) is clear. He doesn't appear to have made an impact in scholarly publications (PROF#C1) but he doesn't need to when notability for his medical outreach work is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Geoffrey Tabin has an endowed professorship at Stanford, which required a multi-million dollar donation from a donor. Other than being chair of a department, an endowed chair is arguably the highest honor that one can achieve as an academic physician. Having an endowed chair at a prestigious university (Stanford) is a strong indicator to having achieved the highest level of success an academia.

As for his accomplishments, Geoff Tabin will go down as one of the most impactful ophthalmologists of all time. Through his NGO, Cure Blindness Project, he has directly financed 1.6 million cataract surgeries (a mind boggling number in Ophthalmology)—and when factoring in the surgeries performed by the trainees that CureBlindness hospitals have trained, that number likely exceeds 10 million. To give a comparison point, there are about 3 million cataracts performed in the entire United States per year. He has established five tertiary teaching hospitals (e.g. built an entire Eye Department in Nepal, Ghana, etc) and funded subspecialty fellowships for hundreds of physicians, ensuring that multiple low- and middle-income countries now have their first retina, glaucoma, cornea, oculoplastics, and pediatric ophthalmologists.

When considering the cumulative impact of his work, he will likely have more impact than almost any Ophthalmologist in the history of the world. Furthermore, he will be one of the more impactful physicians in Global Health (not just Ophthalmologists) of all time based on the scale that his operations have reached (and continue to grow).

His other accomplishment (climbing, mountaineering) are also exceptional, but I will not delve into those details as the original concern was just for WP:NPROF. Arthurbrant21 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was delete‎. Liz 06:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Health Dynamics Inventory

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

Non-notable medical tool. The inventors of this procedure appear to have copy-pasted promotional material onto Misplaced Pages, and even left their contact information at the bottom. It remains without secondary sourcing 14 years later. All the sigcov listed is self-published by the authors. Jdcooper (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I found several PhD theses on ProQuest that use the Health Dynamics Inventory, but I can't find any independent journal articles that use it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete I didn't find any secondary coverage on google scholar. I think WP:TNT applies even in the case that a wikipedia article could be written.--Rolluik (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been PROD'd before so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: An article about an assessment framework which is still marketed. The article makes various claims but has always lacked more than lists of papers by the framework's creators. RHaworth's 2010 PROD on grounds of " no evidence of notability" was removed by an IP without comment or improvement. Searches find sporadic mentions, such as this presentation which mentions "Lack of research" as the first limitation. Particularly in medical areas, it is not appropriate to maintain articles lacking reliable references to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

List of music and dance anime

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

I'm not an expert with the Anime WP, but the term "music and dance anime" seems not to satisfy WP:NLIST: it's not a specific category on the wiki, the self-imposed criteria of not contain strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain anime that use idol setting or themes as part of a bigger plot would seem to be so vague and indefinite as to make the list difficult to populate or understand what makes an entry eligible. There is also no sourcing to support list entries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep but rename to List of musical anime I'll try to fix and redefine it. WP:TNT is also an option . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
With respect, the two options you've presented are polar opposites. Just clarifying - do you think the list as currently drafted can satisfy WP:NLIST? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
"the self-imposed criteria of not contain strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain...", the autor of the article here, is because there already is a list of idol anime and manga so there is no need to duplicate things. Also majority of people are not into both, they are either into idol things or are not. You could divide music anime/manga genres into two broad subgenres: idol subgenre and non-idol subgenre. There are examples for "not strictly idol, but uses idol setting as part of a bigger plot": Heroines Run the Show: The Unpopular Girl and the Secret Task. A girl works for an idol and in idol setting but the story is not about being an idol or becoming an idol. The other is Key the Metal Idol. Also in idol setting but there is a conspiracy behind the curtain and existential crisis of a robot - now compare it to run of the mill idol stories like Pretty Rhythm or D4DJ. There is also anime like Samurai Jam -Bakumatsu Rock-, Hypnosis Mic: Division Rap Battle Rhyme Anima and Paradox Live the Animation for which you could say are idol stories because of the characters but the story is not about being an idol. I don't think it's vague. It's just a question of is there a story about sth other than being (becoming) an idol in the story.
You stated "Inexplicably it also looks like the list contains manga as well." It does NOT. You should't misguide people and not provide examples. Everything on the list is/has an anime/OVA/ONA, but the "problem" is that not many anime have their own articles or (anime-)links redirect to a manga page. It would be ridiculous to expect than a 1 ep OVA has an article. I tried to have as many blue links as posssible so it's possible there are links to a manga but it DOES have anime/OVA/ONA.
There is "dance" in the name of the article because there are anime that revolve around dance, rather than just singing and playing instruments, namely Hula Fulla Dance, Brave Beats and Tribe Cool Crew.
"no sourcing" - not sth that cannot be done after the fact and there is a reason for that. not justification, but for majority of entries there is a blue link to the main article that has all the sourcing you can get so it's not sth I pulled out of my ass. I choose not to source, primarily, because I knew there were bound to be dense people, I was right, and there is likelihood for the article to be deleted, so potentially not to lose extra time I made that decision. A list like this, and this is quite a comprehensive list, takes quite a bit of time to make, more than you could guess. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I have omitted the misleading statement in the nomination. I appreciate the time it's taken to create this. WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT is a concern because the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope. When looking at pages like List of idol anime and manga you can see there's a sourced background and exploration of its scope. Without that here, it's hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus. The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based on an editor's subjective assessment of how much the anime involves an idol plot. That's why external sourcing about this as a clear genre or category is important. Others may consider that this is a very clear and established genre category and if so that's ok and all that needs to be done is better support this in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Rename per Miminity. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Setenzatsu.2, I take it that your comment is a vote to "Keep" this article? Also, an AFD can not close with an outcome of "Rename" as that is an editing decision. If that is what you want to happen. then vote to Keep this article and then a potential rename discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Addendum to my comment/argument presented above: "the self-imposed criteria of not contain strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain..." was already addressed in my first comment, but to expand upon it (and address ＶＲＸＣＥＳ's answer to my comment: "The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based..." ), EVEN IF that is a problematic point of the list it only really concerns 2 to 5 anime out of close to 100 on the list. So it's not an argument for deletion of the entire list. Those entries could just be removed or a discussion could be held if those entries should be kept.
Now addressing "the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope....hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus" I would argue that the scope is not unclear, and that it's not "loosely" focused on music. With two or three exceptions where the story is told with music (no dialog and the story is performed against a background of songs, like in A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color) every other entry has an individual or a group (band, orchestra...) that PERFORMS music pieces. That is the scope - CHARACTERS PERFORM and are in-world artists in most cases (the same is for the two dance entries), except those few (I believe 2 or 3 at most) works where dialog is replaced with music, but for those music is essential to tell the story. That's the reason, I choose for it to be only an anime list - you can see and hear characters perform music/dance which in manga you cannot, but also while reading manga you cannot even imagine it because you don't know what the songs are, which is a bit different from other types of manga where you can imagine things based on description.
edit: I realised that on the surface "characters perform" excludes anime music videos (that are longer than 15 minutes if we stick to the requirement given for the list) but the same argument could be made for anime music videos as the argument given for titles like A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Misplaced Pages articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan
Keep The sources currently in the article and even more in a BEFORE search do demonstrate it passes WP:GNG as a major infrastructure project, though it does need a rewrite. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep lasting significance, notable object, sources enough. --Altenmann >talk 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals or were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This as well is about the "thing" Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: ) --ZimZalaBim 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz 03:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC))

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here , which Oaktree b also found, and here . I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here as there is a fundamental difference of opinion on some sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was merge‎ to Kurdish cinema. I was considering Karzan Kardozi as a target article but it is in the midst of the process of a Merge itself. Liz 03:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I Want to Live (2015 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iraq. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Kurdish cinema: or to the director if his page his kept. Not opposed to Keep if others find the film meets WP:NFIC as a production from Kurdistan. -Mushy Yank. 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming, citation and link for review and news about the film verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge per Mushy Yank. If by some chance the director's article survives, I suppose it can be redirected there. Offhand I do vaguely remember hearing about this film but I can't remember the context. In any case, I did a search in English and Kurdish (via Google Translate). There really is almost nothing out there for this film - there was even less in Kurdish than there was in English. What I could find didn't really make me think that there was more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Of note - I accidentally put this on the director's AfD page. I was going to strike it, but decided to just remove it in order to avoid confusion given the large amount of sockpuppets that are plaguing that AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. Editors can discuss a possible article page move on the article talk page. Liz 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

First United Methodist Church (Midland, Texas)

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

This congregation has apparently been around a long time but I cannot find any evidence for its notability other than being the site of the Bush marriage, which really doesn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Texas. Spiderone 22:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:NCHURCH, individual congregations may be evaluated on GNG, which this one pass with SIGCOV in the Midland Reporter-Telegram (, ) plus the coverage in various George W and Laura Bush biographies. (Once this AfD is over, the page should be moved to reflect that it is no longer United Methodist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, weak because its only one publication leaving aside the Bush bios, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The sources identified above are enough to support a brief article. ( looks like a separate article about the same pulpit swap as above) Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Elvana Gjata, because duh. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to MyPhone. Liz 03:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

MyPhone myA18

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

No evidence of notability for this smartphone. I found pieces like this and this, but I think we would need a lot better sourcing to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep these 2 links should always be the same, but google search always finding me for shopping JGBlue1509 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your argument. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Redirect to MyPhone per WP:ATD-R. Unnotable smartphone model. Most of the sources you can find online are from tech blogs. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge. this is not reliable, so it will be merged or redirected to the article MyPhone @AstrooKai JGBlue1509 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will change my verdict. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to MyPhone. I came across the same two links listed in the nomination when searching for sources. I couldn't find any others to indicate this phone is notable. – numbermaniac 05:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Liz 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

New Jersey Transit Big Tree Garage

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

Article was twice moved to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources cited are a user-generated wiki. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators - I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. (It's also arguably a copyvio of the CPTDB wiki.) Same goes for New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage. The related Category:NJ Transit Bus Garages and Template:NJ Transit Bus Garages And Yards should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I’ve nominated the other two similar depot articles. JTtheOG (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but no. All have pending sources. Toyota683 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Toyota683: What sources do you mean? Could you provide links to these sources? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
First of all, the 3 depot articles have links to the information. Un-nominate Kearny Point article now. It has info on it and it talks about its routes/fleet. Greenville and Big Tree are still in the work process for links. So, don’t try to do it to the other depots because we NJT fans want to see information about it. Toyota683 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was no consensus‎. This is a No consensus closure due, in part, because of the mixed arguments and comments in this discussion, even after 3 relistings. But I'm also not confident about the arguments that have been presented that are very brief and don't present compelling justifications for taking the action they advocate. In this situation, I believe we default to no action being taken. If you wish to see this article deleted, try another AFD in six months and present a convincing, policy-based deletion rationale that clearly shows a BEFORE has been done. Liz 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Misplaced Pages's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The improvements and added sources persuade me of notability. Also, I always think about this comment from WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Being an author of a book does not make her notable to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. I'll just note that I generally dismiss "arguments" like "This subject does not seem notable" because it is a sign that the participant hasn't really given the article and its sources a thorough investigation and is just offering an impression. Liz 01:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Daily Dunya

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

This article is about the company that owns Daily Dunya, this is a directory reference, and this is a mention. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Spiderone 00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: This subject does not seem notable. Fails WP:GNG. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: It's a member of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (indicative, not determinative), and there's quite a lot of English-language analysis of its publications on GScholar. From found there, "The Urdu newspaper stories were extracted from the top five large circulation national dailies that is Daily Jang, Daily Dunya, Express, Daily Aaj, and Nawa-e-Waqt...". I presume that given the English language coverage evident that there would also be a level of coverage in Urdu. Its journalists have received awards - reported on by unrelated sources. HydroniumHydroxide 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep Added 2 new references and fixed other references to show specific info about Daily Dunya newspaper directly and clearly. This daily newspaper is simultaneously published from 7 major cities of Pakistan - Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan, Sargodha and Quetta. It's a notable Urdu-language daily newspaper in the country...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep because I have now added four reliable sources that mention this newspaper. Khaatir (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn‎. I am withdrawing this AFD. (non-admin closure) TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

2025 California wildfires

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

Unnecessary article that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Fires will likely start in less then six months from now, I see no point in deleting this, then recreating it in such a short time. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Next Brandenburg state election

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

While statute dictates the next state election must be before the end of 5 years, the date of this election is not set, and many variables could change the next election date. This leans toward WP:CRYSTAL. No objection to draftifying. Risker (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Just draft it if it doesn't meet the standards to be a article yet. Don't delete. Spaastm (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep: It's now standard practice to create articles for the next election as soon as the current election is over, even if the date is variable/not known e.g. Next United Kingdom general election, Next Spanish general election. If there are specific issues with the article, editors should try to fix the issue or place an appropriate maintenance tag so that other editors are aware, rather than pressing the nuclear button to delete the article. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it seems to be a split between Keeping this article or Draftifying it. I will note that we do have other articles on the project for "next elections".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep We have information specific to this election (i.e. opinion polling data). WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows for future scheduled events that will almost certainly happen (a category that elections in a democratic country fall into). Number 5 7 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Number57. These kinds of election articles are routine and always contain verifiable encyclopedic information. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 04:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Pep Love

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

Questionable notoriety. Only one source which is an interview, therefore a primary source.. not enough to establish notoriety SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect: to the Hierophyphics article, seems to be only known in relation to that group. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment His debut album received some attention from mainstream sources, plus there's this from Billboard. Not sure if that's enough for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep as he does have an AllMusic staff written bio here, and a staff review of a solo album here. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a live link to the target article you are suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The helper5667 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1887)

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

Stub article about a little known soccer player with only three sources that don't make him seem particularly noteworthy. I also did some digging outside and I still didn't find much about him. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - ignorant nomination. This is a player who made 28 appearances in the English Football League, the premier competition at that time - and of course you're going to struggle to find online sources about someone born in 1887! Did you look in the Newspaper archives? Giant Snowman 10:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - Not to be confused with the Bobby Brown's born in the 20th century. I'd be shocked if this player wasn't notable, as was playing in the top tier of English football in the 1907–08 season. There would have been plenty of coverage from numerous sources at that time, difficult to find but would be easy to establish notability with the right sources given popularity of English football back then. CNC (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Whitney Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Awards, and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone 16:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2009-08 (closed as ✓ keep)

Related discussions: 2017-08 Traci Hunter Abramson (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

weak keep: Lots of coverage in the Deseret News, and some in scholarly journals , and here, but this is more of a mention . Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom, all available sources such as Deseret News are LSD-affiliated (so "lots of coverage" over there do not count for notability). The journal link above is literally a sentence in a note. Nothing close to significant coverage in neutral secondary reliable sources. Cavarrone 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hunter, J. Michael (2013). Mormons and Popular Culture: Mormons and Popular Culture The Global Influence of an American Phenomenon. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-313-39168-2. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In addition, LDStorymakers sponsors and hosts the Whitney Awards Academy, founded in 2007 by author Robison Wells. Novels are nominated throughout the year by readers and then voted on by retailers, editors, authors, and other LDS publishing professionals. Awards are given in various genres and for Best Novel of the Year and Best Novel by a New Author. The Whitney award program is named after 19th-century Home Literature proponent Orson F. Whitney, and the organization uses a well-known Whitney quote as its motto: "We will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own." The Whitney awards recognize novels by all kinds of Mormon authors, including those publishing in the national market. While the program arose from the LDS popular fiction side of the cultural divide, some Mormon literary works have been honored with top awards, including the novels Road to Heaven by Coke Newell (Zarahemla Books, 2007) and Bound on Earth by Angela Hallstrom (Parables Publishing, 2008); both of these titles also received the AML's top novel award in their respective years."
2. Clark, Cody (2009-05-02). "Whitney Awards honor best in LDS fiction". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney ... The Whitney Awards were established in honor of Whitney's vision, to encourage the growth of Latter-day Saint literature. On April 25, the group announced the winners of its awards for work published in 2008. The big winner is Sandra Grey, who claimed the Best Novel of the Year prize for "Traitor," in which a woman goes to France during World War II to join the French Resistance. Angela Hallstrom won the Best Novel by a New Author prize for "Bound on Earth." Other winners are ... The Whitney Awards, begun in 2007, are bestowed annually."
3. Rappleye, Christine (2018-05-12). "And the winners for the Whitney Awards on its 10th anniversary are ..." Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The Deseret News is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). I consider it to be sufficiently independent of the Whitney Awards, which is put on by LDSStorymakers, to help to contribute to notability if there are sources non-affiliated with the LDS that cover the topic. The article notes: "Fifty-one novels, the works of 50 authors, were named as finalists across 10 categories for the awards that recognize novels by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the 10th anniversary of the Whitney Awards. ... In the youth categories, “By Your Side” by Kasie West won the young adult general category. “Ones and Zeroes” by Dan Wells and “Blood Rose Rebellion” by Rosalyn Eves were the winners in the young adult speculative and young adult fantasy categories, respectively. ... Author Robison Wells received the Outstanding Achievement Award. He founded the Whitney Awards in 2007 and is the past president of the Whitney Wards. ... The Whitney Awards were founded by Wells in 2007 and named after early LDS apostle Orson F. Whitney."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Clark, Cody (2007-06-30). "Awards for LDS authors". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney, an early apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... LDSStorymakers and author Robison Wells announced earlier this month the creation of an award for LDS writers in Whitney's name. The first Whitney Awards, for works published in 2007, will be handed out at the LDSStorymakers annual conference next spring. LDSStorymakers is a group created to encourage the growth of writing and publication among Latter-day Saints. Wells is a resident of West Jordan and the author of three novels published by Covenant Communications."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Whitney Awards to pass Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per Cunard and Oaktree b's examples and the fact this is essentially the LDS' Oscars and Tony awards. Of course, given the LDS, that doesn't mean much in the Grand scheme of things, but still.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Institutionalist political economy

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

This page largely duplicates the content of the Institutional Economics (IE) page. It states that Institutionalist political economy (IPE) builds upon institutional economics, but does not make clear how it does so. The only writers mentioned by name in the article are key institutionalist economists who already appear in the IE page: Veblen, Commons, Mitchell, etc. Even more significantly, the article does not provide clear evidence that IPE is an accepted term with a meaning that is distinct from IE. Among the cited references, only Ha-Joon Chang's 2002 article uses the phrase "Institutionalist Political Economy." The other articles seem to apply institutionalism in various senses to political economy, but do not establish a school of thought called "Institutionalist Political Economy." Googling "Institutionalist Political Economy" strengthens the sense that this is not an established school of thought: the first page results show a handful of articles by writers (especially Chang and Streeck) trying to claim the term in recent years, but no encyclopedia entries or news articles suggesting that their efforts have succeeded. Nor is it clear that Chang and Streeck are engaged in the same project or members of the same school. (Streeck 2010 does not even cite Chang 2002, for example.) Finally, to the extent that consistency across Misplaced Pages is a relevant consideration, I would note that I attempted to create a "Legal institutionalism" page about a year ago -- because there are, in fact, a number of writers who refer to themselves as "legal institutionalists" and who belong to a relatively coherent school of thought (Hodgson, Deakin, Pistor, etc.). A reviewer rejected the attempt. The reviewer's reasons would seem to apply even more strongly (or at least equally well) to the existing "Institutionalist political economy" than they did to the proposed "Legal institutionalism": "It's not clear to me that this is a coherent concept that really differs from Institutionalist political economy and Institutional economics. I understand that source #1 is trying to make that argument, but do the other sources? Some of the sources, such as #6 and #10, do not even contain the term legal institutionalism. And there are other sources that seem to use the term in a different way, as part of legal theory rather than economics." If a "Legal institutionalism" page is inappropriate, then a fortiori it seems as though an "Institutionalist political economy" page is inappropriate. RLHale (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If a Redirect or Merge outcome is suitable, please provide a live link to a preferred target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The result was redirect‎ to The Millennial Project. Liz 01:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge anything that can be sourced and is worth covering to The Millenial Project - couldn't find anything of substance that wasn't covering the book Iostn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything worth merging into The Millenial Project, but others might find something worthy. The section called Writing career mentions an article he wrote, and a couple of incomplete projects he's worked on. But these are all unsourced and, IMO, non-notable. Dotyoyo (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Millenial Project is not an existing article so it can't be a Merge target article. Any other arguments for what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to The Millennial Project (note the correct spelling is with two ns). Though the subject may be notable, the vast majority of the article is unsourced and I don't see any sourced content worth merging. If sources are found, the redirect can be reverted. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Colette Kaminski

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database source in the article is a student newspaper from the school the subject attended, and a search for additional sources came up empty. Please ping me if additional secondary sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Some pretty good coverage here under her nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)