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)
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)
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)
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)
