Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the majority of the article is either primary sourced or simply talking about the games made with the engine (WP:NOTINHERITED). Back when it was first created, sources were unreliable or irrelevant, and this hasn't really changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep – Seems to meet WP:GNG: A few paragraphs here in a magazine, a few chapters in a game-making book (apparently several editions and publishers from author Luke Ahearn that include significant content about this software), and a few more passing mentions in trade mags of the time that I didn't look through carefully. Article should be reduced to a stub; I see very little worth keeping in the current article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Good find. I note these sources seem to call it the Game Creation System? Is it that the engine's called the same thing as the company, but the tool to create games using the engine is called the Game Creation System? That's a little confusing. VRXCES (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
A game-making book is quite far from WP:GNG. IgelRM (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:53, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Zero significant coverage of these characters outside of the two shorts they are in. One of these characters is literally Hector the Bulldog in clothes with no other aspect to be distinguished. Go D. Usopp(talk) 09:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:39, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I cannot find significant coverage of this companion of Muhammad. I believe that the only source cited in the article is a translation of a 13th century encyclopedia, though I could not find a way to access it. Looking at the list of companions, which was pruned of all non-linked persons shortly after this article was created, they all have more biographical detail and claims to significance. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Islam. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Defunct media company of Univision that appears to have insufficient notability. Founded in 2016, it seems to have become defunct in 2018 according to this quote of the WSJ. Selective merge to multiple entities would be possible. IgelRM (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. IgelRM (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This page should be deleted as a Google search per WP:BEFORE and by asking Claude artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot to find reliable sources indicates that there is minimal coverage of this topic and does not satisfy the general notability guideline as multiple, secondary sources are required to establish notability. Contrary to the discussion on the talk page, longevity does not establish notability. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Outside of the ScreenRant article (reference 1 in the article) and [] (which pretty much covers the exact same topic), there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. As the subject has left the acting industry, it is unlikely anything more will emerge here either. Let'srun (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, agreeing with the assessment by AfD proposer. Lots of passing mentions, but very little significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion on account of a previous contested PROD Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:24, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Found only brief mentions of this article, not enough to establish GNG. There is and Swedish wiki but there is no sources on that wiki. Unsourced for a long time. SVcode(Talk) 00:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Sweden. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 01:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose mergingDaggar Tehsil to Daggar, Pakistan (older article) as they are covering the same topic. Daggar is a tehsil (subdistrict), but for whatever reason this is only mentioned in the infobox of Daggar, Pakistan. The article should be at Daggar Tehsil because it follows the style of other tehsil articles and it's also a natural disambiguation. However, the merge target should be Daggar, Pakistan because it is the older article. A bit of a tricky merger and subsequent move, so I'm start a discussion instead of doing this unilaterally, in case anyone objects or thinks I'm mistaken about the articles in question. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Yue🌙 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
* Merge to Daggar, Pakistan, while keeping tehsil-wide and town-level facts distinct. The target already identifies Daggar as a tehsil and district headquarters. The standalone page's distinct, sourced addition is the 2017 tehsil population of 355,692 (cited to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics); if merged, it should be labeled clearly as the tehsil's population, not the town's. That would preserve the useful census information while avoiding two pages for overlapping coverage. CRASATO.99 (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2026 (UTC)— Blocked sockpuppet of GermanKity, see investigation.
Daggar, Pakistan mentions tehsil in the prose because I added it after starting this proposal. To my understanding, towns can be tehsils and tehsils can be towns; tehsil is an administrative word and town is the common descriptor. I.e., I don't think a town is a fifth-level administrative unit below a tehsil, and I don't think there's a Daggar, Daggar Tehsil, Buner District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, just a Daggar Tehsil, Buner District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Yue🌙 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep This article needed more detail which I have tried and already added to it. There are 5 other similar Tehsils – Chagharzai Tehsil, Gadezai Tehsil, Gagra Tehsil, Khudu Khel Tehsil and Mandanr Tehsil that are already shown under Malakand Division, Buner District on the Wikipedia template already at the bottom of this article. I don't see any need to Merge this article which the nominator himself is describing as 'a bit of a tricky merger' above here. We can try to further improve it...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
@Ngrewal1: I think you misunderstand my proposal, which is not "delete coverage of Daggar Tehsil" but "I'm pretty sure Daggar, Pakistan is talking about Daggar Tehsil so they should be in one article". "Tricky merger" means I or someone else would have to do a bunch of maneuvers for a merge, not that I think a merger is hard to argue. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The Urdu Wikipedia also has two articles that say the same thing: Daggar is a tehsil in Buner District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. I'm pretty sure these two topics are overlapping. Yue🌙 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@ Yue ... 'Merger is not Delete'... is what I should keep in mind? Okay, I admit I misunderstood ... then whatever is decided here as a result of this discussion, I am all in favor of moving the tehsil content in the other Daggar, Pakistan article to Daggar Tehsil article where it belongs. Thanks for clarifying for me...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep The subjects are distinct. One is a town with 20,000 residents, another is an administrative division with 360,000 residents. Both are notable under GEOLAND, and large enough to have a separate page on each. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that being distinct, or independently notable, are not by themselves convincing arguments against merging related subjects. The question isn't whether the two are the same or notable, but whether readers would benefit from reading about the two on a single page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 13:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep It'd be really messy to view them both on the same page and I don't see any way it doesn't devolve into being less useful to readers with them merged. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It would confuse readers to have inconsistent page structure within a region - one tehsil is randomly not given its own separate page. Given that we all presumably acknowledge that the topics are notable, the question comes down to what best serves readers - an inconsistent page schemata does not. Moreover, per WP:NOMERGE these can be developed into interlinked but distinct articles which is one reason not to merge articles. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The direction of the merge is also profoundly confused - why would we merge a larger locality into the article for a smaller one? Geographic merges universally go the other direction. Katzrockso (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment It is irrelevant whether administrators find arguments "convincing". Editors that participate in the discussion should convince other participants, not the closer. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, given that town and tehsil are already mixed in terms of the current content, so a merge with prevent the problem with short text and overlap. The combined unique content isn't long enough to justify splitting the two. Klbrain (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Beyond the handful of tagged problems, the article doesn’t even describe what it means to be a Beyond Live show and how it is notable to group them all together as such. It is sorely lacking references and needs updates (2023 is described as the future) but even if it reached GA quality tomorrow, to me it’s as tenuous as an article of all gigs ticketed through Live Nation. orangesclub🍊 14:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It says Beyond Live is a streaming service for Kpop concerts. I definitely agree it needs updates. SenshiSun (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I had contemplated nominating this myself. Even setting aside the fact that the article is terribly out of date and poorly sourced, I don't think a concert is automatically notable just because it was streamed on the Beyond Live platform. Per WP:NTOUR, "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." Any streamed shows that are part of a notable tour should be covered at the tour article, as with Maniac World Tour, and one-off events should be covered at artists' concert lists, such as List of Twice concert tours. MidnightMayhem (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Could not find any significant coverage - only the official company website. The Greek Wikipedia article also did not have any reliable sources. WP:GNGEngrigg22 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep There's quite a bit of attention in Greek sources if you search with the full Greek name ""Μέλισσα Κίκιζας" (eg.). There are some results that come up with a Google Scholar search too. I'm not familiar enough with either the language or the publishing landscape to make a confident call here, but it seems like pretty in-depth/significant coverage of the company. If kept, article definitely needs some work - ideally by someone confident with Greek sources.Boredintheevening (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep — Boredintheevening's list has a few useful items, and I'd add a November 2024 Οικονομικός Ταχυδρόμος feature that isn't in it. It covers the company's history from its 1947 founding. Of the links already listed, Forbes Greece (March 2026) gives its export strategy a full article, while the results and grant items are routine and don't count for much. Between those two pieces i think WP:NCORP (in-depth coverage from independent sources) is met. The article itself needs rebuilding, which can happen after the AfD. EmilyR34 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relist: Consensus is leaning keep here, but I'd like to see if more than one editor agrees with Boredintheevening. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:32, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
No significant coverage can be found in reliable published sources. Stooob (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 16:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you provide any actual quotes from these sources that show "significant coverage" rather than simply confirming it existed. Books which are simply lists of games are "trivial mentions" so not WP:GNG. You can't make an article from a title, release year and author. Stooob (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Here's a machine translated excerpt from Videojogos em Portugal: Paradise Café rapidly became the most famous game ever produced in Portugal. Few people who owned a ZX Spectrum in Portugal during the 1980s would be unfamiliar with the game; even those who didn't own one—provided they were teenagers at the time—almost certainly heard of it. Despite numerous attempts over the decades by specialized magazines and, more recently, retro-gaming websites to identify the creator, the author never stepped forward. Consequently, we know him only by his pseudonym: Damatta. An analysis of the game's content makes it easy to understand why the author has remained anonymous. *Paradise Café* did not gain fame solely for its adult themes—and certainly not for the abysmal quality of its gameplay. Instead, a key factor in its success was its basis in the so-called "Reinaldo" rumor, a hot topic of conversation in cafés across the country. The urban legend held that in 1984, a soccer player named Reinaldo had sent a female singer from a Portuguese pop group to the hospital following a sexual encounter. Incorporating these elements gave the game a direct link to the social climate of the time, sparking intense word-of-mouth buzz. ~ A412talk! 18:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The "Reinaldo" rumour dates from October 1981 (https://www.dn.pt/arquivo/diario-de-noticias/prova-de-vida---laura-diogo-16699179.html). Years before the release of the game so it wouldn't have been "a hot topic of conversation". Considering the rumour was so famous in Portugal they made a film, Bem Bom, and a TV series about it, yet Videojogos em Portugal gets the most basic fact about it wrong it's not a "reliable source". Stooob (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep great finds A412 it's apparently one of the most influential video games out of Portugal Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Apparently one of the most influential, yet not single source exists to show anything or anybody influenced by it? Stooob (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete While it got mentions in WP:RS, they are extremely trivial and lack any sort of substantive content like previews/reviews that might allow an article to possibly be fleshed out. I am disappointed they were trotted out without any form of caveat about their very short length. I would need to see examples of contemporaneous coverage of note to be convinced, but right now there are just guesses that it may exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry, but no amount of retrospective coverage stating "it's influential" can cure the fact that no source has actually described what the game is or how it plays. A gameplay section entirely sourced from a citation that says I'm not going to explain the game mechanics, because they're certainly common knowledge is not meeting the bar. That sources cannot substantiate the most basic details about a game suggests a WP:GNG failure. VRXCES (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
While gameplay doesn't necessarily need a source, I don't see how the sources pass WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to List of video games developed in Portugal, although a prose article would be better. IgelRM (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
For me that's the only situation I would favor should it get deleted RandomMe98 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm happy with that merge as an outcome. VRXCES (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per A412. The provided sources are enough for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per A412. The sources show that the subject is notable. I FREAKING LOVE MEMES (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. While it is conventional for a video game article to describe its gameplay, that isn't a prerequisite to having an article. There is substance in the sources, and the sources are good ones. As such the material is encyclopedic, and I see no obvious merge target, and so I default to keep, even if the article will remain short. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Non-notable businessperson in a WP:REFBOMBed promotional article. Sources are:
A Forbes Ecuadorprofile that appears to be regurgitating WP:INTERVIEW comments and has no other sourcing beyond Focil and thus non-independent.
A "40 under 40" listing (which are usually promotional, based solely on content submitted by the "honoree" and thus non-independent) in a niche business publication.
Routine coverage of his companies, not of him personally (, , , , , , , , )
Comment from the subject. I'm Andres Focil. This is my only account, and I'm not going to vote on my own article. But the nomination misdescribes the two strongest sources, and I'd ask that they be judged on what they are. (1) The Forbes Ecuador profile (28 Nov 2023) is not "regurgitated interview comments." It is a reported feature by the magazine's editor, Pedro Maldonado Ordóñez (the "Sourtech" in the citation is a broken author field), written in his own voice: "Cuando habla, Focil deja ver que es un hombre de negocios actual. Cuida sus palabras, domina los términos, utiliza el spanglish para explicar y traza planes de largo plazo" ("When he speaks, Focil comes across as a businessman of today. He chooses his words, knows the terminology, uses Spanglish to explain, and lays out long-term plans"). The WP:INTERVIEW essay the nomination cites says in its own text that it is "not about reporters talking to people as they collect information that they will write up in standard news style." That is exactly what this piece is. Forbes Ecuador is a licensed print edition with its own editorial staff, not the Forbes.com contributor platform, and the article carries the (I) tag Ecuadorian media law requires on editorial content; paid content must be tagged (P). (2) Sports Business Journal ran a staff-written feature on 19 May 2026 built around me, which opens "On March 10, Andres Focil and his daughter settled into their seats to watch the Miami Heat host the Washington Wizards." It is not cited in the article and the nomination did not find it. (3) The SBJ Forty Under 40 profile is by staff writer Ethan Joyce, quotes my colleagues, and was selected by SBJ's editors from several hundred nominations. It is reporting, not a submitted bio. Latino Leaders magazine independently placed me at no. 79 on its 101 Most Influential Latinos list this year (July–August 2026 issue, p. 26); I learned of it this week, so nobody on my side submitted it. SBJ also ran a technology feature on 14 Oct 2024 on how I built the company and a staff piece on 3 June 2026 that opens with me, neither cited. The El Universo and Metro Ecuador items are listed under "coverage of his companies." That is wrong: they are about my minority stake in the Los Angeles Golf Club and do not cover WMT. They are brief, so I am not relying on them. The first three sources are significant coverage, by reliable publications, independent of me, which is what WP:BASIC asks for; the rest reinforce them. The article itself does have problems, and I've said so on the talk page in an edit request rather than touching it myself: the Ascenta sentence and the "only person born in South America" line should go, as should the vendor, client and primary-source citations. If the article is kept, cut it to what the sources support; I'd welcome that. If it isn't, I ask that it be moved to draft rather than deleted. I'll quote any passage from the paywalled pieces on request. AF712 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if we assume Forbes coverage is admissible, this is not enough. The second source linked above, SBJ, is sponsored by WMT, the subject's company, so it is not independent. Various top listicles usually do not provide enough in-depth content on the subjects, and the two above are no exception. The last two links are about the company, and Focil is cited as its executive. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Two things. First, Kelob2678 is right about the 19 May piece: it's in SBJ's sponsored section, I missed that, and I withdraw it. Second, that's the only point in this discussion that has been checked, and it isn't the one the article rests on. The nomination called the Forbes Ecuador profile "regurgitated interview comments." It isn't; it's a reported feature by the magazine's editor, in his own voice, and nobody has disputed a word of what I quoted from it. The delete vote says "even if we assume Forbes coverage is admissible," which is not an assessment of the source, it's a decision not to make one. So let's be precise about what is on the table: (1) a full-length independent profile in a national business magazine; (2) a 1,000-word editorial feature in SBJ on 14 October 2024, bylined by staff writer Ethan Joyce, on how I built the company, which is not sponsored and is about me as much as about WMT; (3) the Forty Under 40 profile, also by Joyce, selected by SBJ's editors and reported from my colleagues; (4) a national magazine, Latino Leaders, placing me at no. 79 of 101 with a written profile I didn't know existed; and (5) three Ecuadorian national-press items that the nomination filed under "coverage of his companies" when they are about my ownership stake in the Los Angeles Golf Club. WP:BASIC says in terms that when no single source is substantial, multiple independent sources may be combined. That is this case, and "listicle" is not a rebuttal of a selected, editorially written profile. The promotional tone, the Ascenta line and the padding in the citations are real, and they are cleanup, which deletion is not; I have already asked on the talk page for them to be cut. I'd ask the closer to weigh the sources rather than count the two of us, and either keep and trim to what they support, or move to draft. AF712 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
@AF712 Did you have anything to do with the creation of this article or the former article on WMT Digital? You seem very familiar with Wikipedia procedures for someone whose account has made five edits in the six days since it was created. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
No. I didn't create, edit or write this article or the WMT Digital one. This is my only account and I'd never edited Wikipedia before last Saturday. On the fluency: I read the primers linked at the top of this page and the conflict of interest guidance and I've had help understanding the process and wording my comments. The facts and the sources in them are mine, and I'll answer anything else you want to ask. AF712 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
While you’re reading, you should probably read WP:AITALK before you continue posting comments here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 15:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
To me, it is a Keep. There is a lot of coverage online I found when searching google. I didn’t go deep on all of his articles because some are behind paywalls but there is a wide variety of sources from credible publishers. There is one subset of articles on his sports ownership that would count as one notable event and the extended coverage on Sport Business Journal could count as another single piece of coverage. Combining those certainly meets the two pieces of coverage and the international factor just adds to credit to that decision. There is other stuff but much of it is paywalled but this isn’t just fluff, he is a legit Ecuadorian, making his accomplishments more worthy of recognition since it’s such a small and poor country. [|TGL coverage]~2026-57440-78 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC) —~2026-57440-78 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Reply: That article on "up and coming" is just a random essay and not accepted guidelines. The Forbes Ecuador article is written by the Editor of 6 years and per your link to Forbes in perennial sources "articles are considered generally reliable if it is ascertained their authors were part of the Forbes staff at the time of the article's writing". That Forbes profile along with his TGL coverage in several international publications showcase that this is not local but international coverage. His coverage in SBJ, Billboard and Biz Journal certainly show sustained coverage in the USA to the tune of over 30 articles. I do want to make one thing clear, this page is a bit of a mess with links that have changes or been unpublished. It definitely could use a rewrite but there is plenty of published content to pull from. Generally unpublishing should be a last resort with appropriate content to cite but I could also see Drafting as a Second Option. ~2026-57635-69 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC) —~2026-57635-69 (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The delete commenters are making their case. The keep commenters are not. If we had heard from even one or two more experienced editors or if this AfD had already had its second relist, I would close as delete right now. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:34, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:25, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Just a list of squads failing WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE that could be simply merged to the parent article. Vestrian24Bio 16:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. This appears to be just one of what should have been a bulk nomination. The nom has listed several other "squads" pages for merging, as well. It doesn't make sense to discuss each indivudally. Suggest merging the discussions before anyone !votes. pburka (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The company JustJunk may have attracted some coverage, though I am doubtful if it meets WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Poorly sourced stub about a BLP. Please add better sources before pinging me. Bearian (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Sources substantiating notability for Thorne and/or JustJunk (in the latter case a page creation and merge is in order) . He also appeared on Be the Boss Canada, not sure how important that is, but would figure it contributes to notability.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: CSG's second and fourth sources only provide passing mentions of Thorne (the third is inaccessible to me, maybe due to location issues); but the first is definitely sigcov. My own search, almost certainly limited by my location, turned up a Queens University alumni review which is (somewhat marginal) sigcov as well, and with these two sources Thorne seems to clear WP:BASIC narrowly. I expect there'd be offline sources about Thorne which can be used that I am missing as well due to my location. JavaHurricane 07:57, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to East Coast of the United States. From my investigation, it seems that "Eastern Seaboard" capitalized as a proper name commonly refers to a region of the United States (Eastern Seaboard already exists as a redirect). This page also includes Eastern states of Australia (which never once uses the term "seaboard") and alleges that the Northeast megalopolis is "often coterminous" with Eastern Seaboard, which appears to be simply wrong (most sources define the Eastern Seaboard as extending to Florida). I will tentatively acknowledge the Eastern seaboard of Thailand listed here, which is frankly not a well-written article (I'm skeptical of its title), but for the time being, a hatnote should suffice for any confused readers.
For anyone still not convinced, 76% of outgoing pageviews last month went to East Coast of the United States (interestingly, the rest went to Northeast megalopolis, the one I've argued is not even correctly listed here). I'll address the last potential elephant in the room: yes, in theory, the east coast of any country in the world could be described as its "eastern seaboard". WP:PARTIAL applies here; "Eastern seaboard of X" does not need to be disambiguated at "Eastern seaboard". A disambiguation page would only be necessary if the term Eastern Seaboard alone were widely used in reference to different countries. —An anonymous username,not my real name 20:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Retain as-is It's a proper disambiguation page with a known definition, and even though the servers are hosted in the United States, we describe uses worldwide, not just between New York and Washington. Nathannah • 📮 22:05, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Nathannah, did you read any of what I wrote? At best, the most plausible argument against redirecting would actually be total deletion per WP:PARTIAL; there's no use in cataloging every place that could be described as an Eastern seaboard if none of them are widely known by this name without further context. The onus is on you to demonstrate that some other place or thing is called simply the Eastern Seaboard without explicitly identifying the coast in question. —An anonymous username,not my real name 22:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-51624-17, the problem is that DAB pages are meant to list things referred to by their title, not related terms that happen to contain their title. "Eastern Seaboard" is a specific American colloquialism when the more usual English term would just be "east coast" (for what it's worth, this usage is also seen in Canada, and apparently it's also sometimes used for the entire Atlantic coast of North America). The eastern coast of any country or region could plausibly be described as its eastern seaboard, but this is akin to having Zoo (disambiguation) list individual examples of zoos (the example specifically warned against by WP:PARTIAL). —An anonymous username,not my real name 16:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the thing is, sources based in virtually any country might occasionally make reference to the "eastern seaboard" in passing when it's obvious which eastern seaboard is being discussed. That doesn't mean this usage is especially popular in that country, as seems to be the case for the Thailand article (only one source actually uses "eastern seaboard"). I even was able to find some sources using the term in reference to China, which is pretty silly when China only has one "seaboard". To me, this just seems like the zoo example all over again. —An anonymous username,not my real name 16:31, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Of course the corollary is do non-American sources use "Eastern Seaboard" to refer the East Coast of the United States? Anyway, it's just a comment indicating one potential resolution if a specific set of circumstances is shown to be accurate. The allocation of my volunteer time for the coming week is almost certainly going to be directed to IRL organizations. Given that, I do not see myself adding a bolded analysis either way. If it turns out the sourcing is not there to support other uses, then I expect more bolded redirect recommendations will be forthcoming soon enough. ~2026-51624-17 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if deletion might be the best path after all. The main piece of evidence that seemed to indicate that eastern seaboard held some special affinity to the United States is the fact that Britannica uses Eastern Seaboard as the title of their article for the US East Coast, but they are also published in the US (I had no idea of this until recently). There are a surprising number of sources referencing the Australian and Thai eastern seaboards (I had thought their inclusion here to begin with was rather arbitrary), although then again, there relatively few countries with multiple seaboards. In these cases, the country in question is either explicitly identified or the source is based in said country to make it sufficiently obvious (again, mirroring the zoo case). I think it would be difficult to make an argument that "Eastern Seaboard" without any further specification is a common name for multiple places (and justify the continued existence of this page). —An anonymous username,not my real name 18:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I think there is evidence that usage is contextual. How much navigation benefit accrues to readers who see the term elsewhere without understanding what it refers to within the context of the work is harder to say. ~2026-51624-17 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
There are at least two valid targets that require disambiguation here: Eastern Seaboard (Thailand) (I recently moved the article, since it's a proper noun and was previously misnamed), of which the term is the actual title, and East Coast of the United States, where it is bolded in the first sentence as a significant alternative name, and should receive an incoming redirect or disambiguation page link. Northeast megalopolis doesn't belong on the page, as it's not known by the term. I'm not sure about Eastern states of Australia. So it depends on whether "Eastern seaboard" is an actual alternative term for Eastern states of Australia (which doesn't currently list it as a bolded synonym in the lead). If it is not, then this becomes a question of whether there is a clear primary topic between the US and the Thai articles. If not, then the page should be kept as a WP:NOPRIMARY disambiguation page. If there is a primary topic, then the plain title can be redirected there, and the other linked to from a hatnote. Given the uncertainty expressed in the discussion here, I'm leaning towards keep as the most flexible solution. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Paul 012, what source do you have for moving the Thailand article? Of the sources given, only one uses "eastern seaboard" and does not capitalize it. —An anonymous username,not my real name 16:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The term primarily refers to the industrial development of the region in the 1980s–1990s, so it's easier to find usage in book sources covering that period, e.g. , , , . (Some of the previews don't work if the links are changed to the .com domain, so I don't know if they'll show up for you.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 18:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Seems like a proper disambiguation page: no reason why the USA is greater than Thailand or Australia (the term does appear in a number of scholarly articles about Australia). SportingFlyerT·C 22:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
And what makes you think I didn't? SportingFlyerT·C 22:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
no reason why the USA is greater than Thailand or Australia — either you thought this was my argument, in which case you did not read it, or you did not think so, in which case this statement did not need to be made. —An anonymous username,not my real name 22:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I read your argument, looked at the page, looked to see what the meanings were, and drew my own conclusion. I was not directly responding to you. Eastern seaboard has specific meanings to America, Thailand, and Australia from a very cursory Google Scholar search, even though it doesn't appear in the Australian article. As such this is a proper disambiguation page and there's absolutely no need to do anything with it. SportingFlyerT·C 09:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I am proposing mergingStaten Island Community Board 2 and Staten Island Community Board 3 into Community boards of Staten Island. This follows from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island Community Board 1. My reasoning for this is that Community boards of Staten Island already describes the locations that Community Board 2 and Community Board 3 cover. While it might seem that SILive.com has some coverage on the boards, it is largely very specific coverage on specific meetings. Matters such as a park having too much litter or a local road being reconfigured. Essentially none of the SILive.com coverage addresses general matters that could form the basis for a Wikipedia article. Examples of this are: and . These news article describe discussion about Staten Island Chamber of Commerce, New York City Problem Gambling Resource Center, and a specific entrance at a specific school changing possibly disrupting the surrounding traffic flow. I have tried to improve these articles, but I could not in any substantive way. The sources are just too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. CinemaScan (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related articles:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NBAND. They didn't chart anywhere, and disbanded a few days ago and there isn't any notable coverage of it. Can't find any coverage of multiple members departing either, in Korean or English press. There is some pretty routine coverage in general but nothing beyond some promotional press of their then-upcoming debut, honestly the lack of anything negative being covered suggests to me that the coverage they do have was paid for. orangesclub🍊 15:20, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep While the group's disbandment doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources, the group itself does, so it fulfills WP:GNG. Billboard, CNN, and Korea Herald are all fully reliable sources as per WP:RSP or WP:KO/RS#NA. Perhaps a better idea would be to shorten the article to a stub rather than deleting it outright, since many details are only attributable to primary sources. Goobab (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I understand that these are reliable sources but it's almost all coverage about a WP:SINGLEEVENT, that is, their debut... which failed to make any splash at all to meet the WP:NBAND points 2 through 12. The coverage is essentially that these 5-6 women were assembled, went to a recording studio, and that's it. orangesclub🍊 15:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
120,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify in a day . The purpose of WP:NMUSIC is to determine what music is actually notable. WP:NBAND1 also stipulates non-trivial and it's hard to see this coverage as anything but that: it is shallow puffery of a music group that hasn't actually created any notability as a music group, and now won't. I'll leave it here. orangesclub🍊 19:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
KeepI have a suspicion none of your talk would be happening if VVS hadn't spoken on ILLIT. Even then, it's unreasonable to say that they "didn't make a splash." D.I.M.M., for one, contains lyrics so remarkable it went viral on TikTok for a little, and so did their snippet of COUNT IT UP (also known as VVS HO.) You could also say this about any other nugu kpop group, as there are many groups less popular than VVS that have an article on here, but I don't see you fighting to delete them? And what about other musical acts, outside of kpop, that, in your words, would also "not make any more notability?" (i.e. by disbanding.) Leave your personal opinions out of this, and stop stretching Wikipedia policy pages to defend your shell of an argument. Kayswisse (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
"so remarkable it went viral on TikTok" and yet it didn't chart on a single national music chart or generate any media coverage? Please don't WP:WHATABOUT, I am not "fighting to delete" other articles that I literally haven't heard about. I nominated this article for deletion because I heard that a group disbanded, visited the Wikipedia article on them and found out that there is no one in the media talking about them. I'm not stretching Wikipedia policy, but I notice you haven't actually mentioned any policies yourself to justify this article staying. I don't keep up with petty fanwars, keep your personal attacks out of this. orangesclub🍊 18:45, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
can we leave the fanwars out of this. Anyway, I think that this should stay as a stub. There's really not many articles that severely talk about them, but the mentions from CNN, Billboard, and other news sites is notable. Yes, not many sites were talking about their disbandment, but it is notable that they were talked about at some point. Sylveon (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
and also "single event", they've had a comeback before, so it isn't a single event. Sylveon (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It's not that not many sites were talking about their disbandment, or their "drama", or their members leaving, it's that literally no sites have talked about these things. Keeping this article as a stub to say "This group existed at one point. Then they stopped" doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. orangesclub🍊 19:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Mokshiri is a strange one; probably churnalism based on the about page .
Koreanxwear is a random clothing website, not a reliable source.
I'm not saying you're not right, I'm saying the evidence you provided is not good. If you provide other better evidence it'd be more convincing. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment there's some coverage in Korean but not a large amount. Possibly all these are just press releases, which are weak in contributing to notability.
Imo if Korean sources are accounted for it's possible they're over the line of notability, but I dont want to spend a lot of time looking. Honestly even the coverage in Korean is sparse for a kpop group. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Attention from additional Korean-speaking editors, as indicated by Grapesurgeon, above is particularly appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 19:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Currently there are 0 sources that contribute to notability. It's all interviews/primary. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 20:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
This person has produced quite a whole range of music videos and nominated for a "Swedish Oscar" called Guldbaggen (best script) with a feature film called Exodus in 2024-2025 (production company B-reel films) if not mistaken. Don't know why that is a not a reference on this article. Svenskpol (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Found the references I mentioned above. The film was nominated for several awards in Europe with Daniel Bramme as Executive Producer. Svenskpol (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the help with the references @Svenskpol.
Will check the notes made by you, TorquoiseGoose, and make amendments or additions to the article. Glazzhouse (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, no non-primary or secondary reliable sources appear to provide subject significant coverage, therefore fails WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Sources describe the 1682 battle for which there is Battle of Anandpur (1682). This 1685 battle has very small coverage. NavjotSR (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
The article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Furthermore, it has stood empty for almost two years now and the only two sources are primary ones. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 05:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Only one sentence; subject seems to deal with many crimes but the creator chose to focus solely on sex crimes against minors. Seems extremely obscure to warrant an article on here because I'd never heard of this before. Puzzlepiecelad (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources provided are news reports discussing a recent event with no lasting relevance. WP:NBUSINESS explains what kind of sources are required for a business to become encyclopedic. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 19:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep own article. I'd advise the nominator to be aware of WP:NPPHOUR (which I have had to be reminded of myself). That being said, I am okay with draftification, though I will not do so myself at this time. guninvalid (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
You can use the draft space and then move the article. That won't change the fact that this article is titled "Art of Play". The sources provided are not about "Art of Play", they are about an event that occurred inside Art of Play. You can spend all the time you want writing about it, yet, this article is still not about Art of Play. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 19:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
BTW, I'm not an NPP, so I don't see why you point me to a page for NPPs. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 19:53, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Discusses Molly in detail, and demonstrates many of the novelties in the shop on video. McDermon is listed as a senior editor for Atlas Obscura. Admittedly, the video is an WP:INTERVIEW, but the brief article is not.
Mostly providing reliable coverage of the Clarkson coverage, but some coverage of how the shop itself is handling the lasting consequences of the controversy.
Looking through I am noticing that there is a surprising lack of coverage of the store itself beyond the controversy, but there is some. If these aren't enough for WP:ORGCRIT, then this article probably can't survive this AfD at this time. Oh whale, not the first time. guninvalid (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Atlas Obscura has user-generated content. Even if there were three acceptable sources, NBUSINESS is harsher than other notability pages to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as an advert space. Beyond the NYT article written last year (), simply covered because one of the co-owners is notable, there is little to do with the store. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 02:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 18:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 02:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This article makes no sense it seems to conflate Rotation around a fixed axis and Angular momentum, is sourced mainly to blogs, Grunge, Stack Exchange and YouTube, and contains physics errors such as claiming the ISS stays in orbit “due to angular momentum”???, suggest is delete and/or redirect to Rotation around a fixed axisIndrasBet (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. There is little content here, and much of it remains incorrect. For example, this article incorrectly attributes the bulge at Earth's equator to the Coriolis effect. The existing Rotation series of articles in Classical Mechanics already handles this subject.
Etc.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. This article could be a good resource for introducing the concept of angular mechanics and its applications, which is helpful since the subject is a pain point for many students. It also has a valid purpose in that physics is heavily built upon the principle of equivalency, and understanding how to relate physics from one area to another is a key aspect of doing physics. I've done a little cleanup on the article, and it should be easy to straighten it out with references and correct factual errors. It has a section for planetary motion, but it's currently missing information in regards to Kepler's laws and Newton's universal gravitation. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 01:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I deleted the completely wrong sentence about the Coriolis effect, but I haven't had time to scan this for other less obvious errors.
What remains is a grab bag of uninteresting facts (e.g. the speed of the earth's rotation).
This subject is already handled well by the other articles on physics, and may contain additional misinformation. If we really want an article with this title, it'd be better to start from scratch. Reasoncraft (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't oppose a delete and draft per your suggestion. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 13:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment, just edited on the page and added to my education concerning Earth, Sun, and Moon rotation. Wouldn't it be easier to work the page as it is and not delete good material (a draft using the present page as a founation could work as long as it was worked on and not forgotten). The topic adds to Wikipedia's collection on rotation. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 01:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Unable to find any reviews besides the one listed on the article. Other sources only discuss the band briefly. I would suggest redirection or merge, but since the actual band's article doesn't exist (still a draft), I'm nominating for deletion. Bungle491 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This documentation doesn't seem to be notable. Strangely, I couldn't find anything, not even TV listings, of the films he made. Nighfidelity (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deletion as this doctor does not meet the notability requirements. A Google Search for "Dr. Vidyadhara Srinivasa" returns no reliable secondary sources, a Google Books search only returns an offhand mention in a textbook, and Google News returns nothing. African Mud Turtle (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Blatant spam. Also, I don't see any sources (in the article and otherwise) that would count towards WP:BASIC. JavaHurricane 10:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references in the article are databases, and all I see in my searches are hits on an unrelated artist. Let'srun (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference here is a database listing, and I can't find anything better elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Beyond a few articles on the subject being drafted into the MLS (but never signed with the team or played in any top level matches), I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The best I could find is [] but it isn't really about the subject. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The references here either are from the teams the subject played for and as such lack independence, or are merely mentions. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since February 2023, only a month after its creation. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Sourcing rests on the subject's own sites and those of brands he endorses, expat and lifestyle listings and interviews. Created by a sockpuppet of the paid-editing farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. Kqol•talk 00:19, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC through significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources:
The Beet – article focused entirely on the subject's background, vegan diet and training career.
Bangkok 101 – article focused entirely on the subject's background, vegan diet and training career
New Vision dedicated article on the subject's fitness work. Partially interview, but the sections that are non-interview are original writing by the writer, not primary and should count towards notability
Muscle & Fitness (Vietnam edition, July 2018) – cover appearance with accompanying feature on his training history.
Yoga Magazine - Partially tips and advice, but it also has info about the subject and a bio
Canadian Vegan Magazine multi-page print features about the subject. Contains Some quotations, but there is enough original writing by the writer.
He has multiple sustained coverage over roughly seven years, in multiple countries, by different bylined journalists, which addresses WP:SUSTAINED. Any self-authored pieces in the article which are not being relied on for notability, can be trimmed. Concerns about tone or weaker sources are matters for cleanup under WP:ATD, not deletion.~2026-58085-73 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak support. I am torn because these are actually all separate positions with different meanings in history, depending on the university model and its evolution. In historical terms, "rector" is the elected head of the student union, who commands the student body, "chancellor" is the head of bishop's chancery, whose role here is limited to merely signing degrees, "vice-chancellor" the bishop's representative actually assigned to oversight of teachers in a city, etc. Who is actually the "head" depends on whether the university is historically based on the Bologna model (student-led, with civic oversight) or the Paris model (faculty-led, with bishop's oversight). "Colleges" are residential houses, an entire thing apart, who have their own heads with a variety of names ("Master", "President", "Principal", "Provost", "Warden", etc.), depending on their sponsors charters. College heads have no relation to the university structure, nor degrees, and in many cases not even involved in education at all (their role being limited to disciplining student behavior in the residences). Of course, all these roles have evolved since, but have different origin and meanings. So I am OK with merging them all as heads in their modern incarnations, but would like for the text to underline their different original roles (e.g. "Rector" very different from a "Chancellor"), and make clear where meanings continue to differ, e.g. a "college president" in England is entirely different from a "college president" in the United States. Walrasiad (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Good point about the history – this is definitely something that should be reflected within the article (if the merger happens).
To be clear Head of college – the article about the heads of constituent residential colleges of universities – is not part of this proposal because, as you say, that is a quite different role. The colleges referred to here are higher education institutions such as Dartmouth College. Robminchin (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. A merged article would be more opportune to explain the differences in titles in one place, then scattering explanations across multiple articles. Walrasiad (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Support – Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:OVERLAP. Even if these roles have different meanings in history as the editor above said, it's best to explain the differences between them by covering them together per WP:PAGEDECIDE to serve our readers which wouldn't know that. FaviFake (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Full Support thank you for the ping. As seen with class president merge and the rationale left here; we have far too many articles that overlap about the title or position. The terminology in many of these type of cases are interchangeable and would mean the same thing. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, as these are clearly distinct jobs, and the contents are far from dictionary definitions, each one being well-developed and discussing the different roles in the context of different universities. The pages are currently sufficiently clear in the scope, even when nomenclature may different between countries or even institutions within countries. A merged article will be significantly more confusing for readers. Klbrain (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above Bravelake (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose merging vice-chancellor to chancellor because they are very different positions, similar to CEO vs. non-executive director, prime minister vs. ceremonial president. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The current "chancellor" article already covers both ceremonial and executive university heads, due to it being based on the word "chancellor" (and including "president ") rather than on any particular role. Being able to divide out ceremonial and executive heads properly would be enabled by this proposal. Robminchin (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I can see a Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor merge working, what with the vice-chancellor being the deputy of the chancellor, but as well as the rector article being quite expansive, at British universities with all three the rector is very much not the ‘head of university’. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac(talk) 09:48, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Biography of a living person known for a single event (his scam). No notability. This belongs on a news website, not an encyclopedia. WP:BLPWP:ONEEVENTWP:NOTNEWSJohnMizuki (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2024, but that was effectively tainted by a disruptive SPA (even the then-nominator only brought it to AfD after the aforementioned SPA had PROD and speedy deletion to bring it up for discussion, not necessarily in support of deletion itself), and in any event BLP1E didn't seem to come up at all at the time. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: There was strong and unanimous (apart from the bludgeoning SPA, since blocked) consensus to keep this at the previous AfD, and I don't believe anything has materially changed since then. Satisfies GNG, complies with BLP rules, and as a public figure the person in question is an entirely valid encyclopaedia article subject. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This article just went through the Afd process in January 2026 and the consensus was delete. I searched for new sources and there has not been enough independent WP:SIGCOV to warrant a new decision in my opinion. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Without interviews, thier story never get to light. Am not good with Italian source, but I see RS here. Dora Lilly (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Staticspector (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staticspector (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: this survived the first nomination 20 years ago (itself a follow-up to a G11 speedy deletion that was contested at DRV), but standards both for articles and for AfD discussions were lower back then. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to a list of McVities products. Product info is of interest to people looking for information on discontinued chocolates and there are coverage of said products out there. Ultimate Norman (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC).
Blocked sockpuppet of GermanKity, see investigation. 
