Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 08:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Last AfD was 13 years ago. I don't think simply being a FRCGP is an automatic pass for notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. A search for sources finds a namesake lawyer. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Some reviews of the asthma book, but I don't see enough to show a pass at notability. The rest appears non-contributory to our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Made by Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/ProgramT. Beyond the AI issues, totally unsourced and non-notable cross categorization that fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Which, yes, Nazi means "National Socialist", we do not need to have a list that is "every neo-Nazi group and a bunch of other right-wing groups that happen to use the word "socialist"." And "syncretic"? What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per proposer's rationale. This includes the AINB case but also, independent of that, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a small-city mayor, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for mayors. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to have or keep Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage, about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this features none of that kind of content, and is just a perfunctory "here's some pre-political career background and her electoral record", which is not what it takes to make a mayor notable -- and for referencing, five of the ten footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the other five are purely run of the mill local coverage of the "runs for election/re-election" and "wins election" and "gives birth to baby" flavours, with absolutely no coverage of the "actually does anything specific in the job" variety shown at all (unless you count the baby, but that's not a political achievement) — but that's the kind of coverage that it takes to nail down the notability of a mayor, and just minimally verifying that she won the election is not even close to enough. Simply existing as a mayor (especially in a city with a population of only 40K) is not "inherently" notable without much more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Zero notability outside of his association with John Lydon and notability is not inherited. Obituaries are not reliable sources and the other sources here are all about Lydon. A search brings up nothing but a few obituaries for Stevens, no other WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
LLM-generated, promotional, refspammed. Refs are mainly the type where Matzorkis is mentioned but is not the main topic at hand. There are also non-independent refs such as links to his personal archive as well as a "contributor" (ie paid/sketchy) article from Entrepreneur.com.
Even if Matzorkis is notable (which I'm not convinced of), this LLM-generated version is not an appropriate version of the article and should be TNT'd. ♠PMC♠(talk) 21:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello Aneirinn. I beg to differ with your assessment.
Please explain exactly how the subject fails this standard for WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: This article previously existed and was deleted in 2009. The account also seems to be Single Purpose, only edits outside of this topic are to get enough edits to create an article around the AfC process. Moritoriko (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Moritoriko. I don't know anything about a previous article -- that's before my time. While you may think this article appears single purpose, it's not. I'm just getting started with Wikipedia. I'm doing research on obscure entrepreneurs and this is the first one I've collected enough information on to be able to create an article around. I'm hoping that future articles I write here will be welcomed.
Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This was just a comment to let people reading know about the past history of the article.
Not the article, I meant your account, you did a bunch of small edits on a variety of pages and then you made this page and (almost) all of your other edits have been adding Matzorkis to other pages as opposed to working on a wide variety of topics. This is partly because you are a new account, as you do more work it won't be an issue (hopefully:))
I am glad to hear that and I hope you can make some good articles. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. (1) This article is not LLM generated. (2) This article is not promotional. (3) I don't know what "refspammed" means so I'll have to check on that.
Regarding (1): Did you run the current article through an AI detector to determine that the article is LLM gnerated? If so, please upload a copy or copy and paste the results.
Regarding (2): This guy has had a pretty remarkable entrepreneurial journey and just the very nature of the kinds of businesses he's been involved in and started might seem to be promotional, but the entertainment business reads that way. Please point out specific sections that are promotional and they can be fixed.
Regarding (3): Many of the references are published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Again, if some don't meet those criteria, then please point them out -- they can be replaced.
Finally, regarding notability, Matzorkis meets the standard here: Wikipedia:Notability (people) "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." How many is "multiple?" 3? 5? 10? 25? What is Wikipedia's baseline requirement? In this case, there are multiple articles from The Washington Post, the NY Times, the Los Angeles Times, Elle, NPR, the San Francisco Chronicle, Inc., Costco Connection, and more where Matzorkis appears and in many cases is quoted.
Thanks for your consideration. Veganomics (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am the person who tagged the article as incorporating text from an LLM. I thought it seemed overly wordy and promotional in line with other previously confirmed cases and then afterwards I selected a couple paragraphs I hadn't edited and put them in an AI-detector to see if it agreed with me. Truthfully I don't think that they are fully reliable but it did provide another data point for me to consider.
As for how many sources is multiple, the usual baseline at AfD is ~3 depending on the strength of the sources. I will go through the sources on the article here and give you some comments about them to help.
Crunchbase: Useless source, does not help when considering notability and probably not useful otherwise either
James' obituary: this source is not considered independent because it was most likely written by the family, could be used for basic uncontroversial facts possibly
Entreprenuer.com: the tone and the fact that the author is a marketer rather than reporter make me not feel great about this source
Billboard: A brief brief mention that is not significant
Cleveland Historical: No mention, good source for Henry LaConti
Youtube: not suitable as a source for anything
Copley News Service: through some search-fu I have found the article written by a journalist but it doesnt match at all with the sentences it is used to support (a problem often seen with LLM generated content). It does talk about Matzorkis though so it might be useful for a re-written article.
SFGate: no mention of Matzorkis
Overall having many of these not great sources leads to editors viewing the article poorly. The best sources I found are ones like or Moritoriko (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No evidence found for this volleyball player, either in the corresponding wikis or elsewhere. The only reference here is a dead link that went to a primary source. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Time in New Zealand because there is no need for a standalone article on the timezone, which does not appear notable.
This is an article that has no realistic prospect of expansion because what more could you realistically say about it beyond adding a short paragraph on why the Chatham Islands is 45 minutes ahead. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge. Per nom. No justification for a standalone article. DerbyCountyinNZ(TalkContribs) 20:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose – I was set to support, but after doing a short WP:BEFORE on PapersPast, I think there's some interesting history here that could support a standalone article (albeit a short one, but no harm in that). This 1955 Press article gives some context on why the Chathams are 45m ahead of NZST, as well as some of the debate that lead to the time being legally recognised. The Chathams also used three different "times" prior to the 1956 legislation, which could also be expanded on . There was also some discussion in 90s that instead of operating switching to Chatham Daylight time, that they'd only put their clocks forward 15mins to sync up with NZDT.nilnz 00:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose based on what Nil NZ has unearthed, which pretty much debunks the nomination statement. The article can be expanded in a meaningful way. Schwede66 09:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No evidence of notability found for this volleyball player, either in the corresponding wikis or elsewhere. The only references are primary to the competitions the subject has participated in. Let'srun (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:ABADI. Appears to be an individual farm/industrial facility. The nearest named village appears to be "Sharifabad". Population too low to be an official village. Gospelgo is not a reliable source. Merkür'ün soyundan gelen (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - I already PROD'd this, the deletion rationale here was the one I used. The PROD was also seconded. I don't know why this has been sent to AFD, but there you are. FOARP (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The excess of AfD tags make me worry that this was nominated for deletion instead of allowing the PROD to continue in order to game the extended confirmed stats. Each of those AfD sorting list adds is a semi-automated edit. Jahaza (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
And of all of those deletion sorting lists, the only one that would appear to be directly relevant to this subject as all is Iran–none of the other ones apply. (No opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:46, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - disruptively created, disruptively deprodded. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, only comment was not in support and AFD creator was a sock. Izno (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Primarily based on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:HISTRS. The article does not appear to provide sufficient reliable historical evidence to establish the existence and notability of Bijli Pasi as a historical ruler. There is an apparent lack of substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and the historical claims require verification through credible historical scholarship. The article also appears to present caste-related historical claims without adequate supporting evidence, raising concerns about neutrality and encyclopedic presentation. Merkür'ün soyundan gelen (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep for the same reasons as last time. Jahaza (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the first nomination from 2020 ended in withdrawal. It cannot be overlooked, however, that the nominator placed this into numerous deletion sorting categories, many (not all, but most) of which don't actually pertain to this subject at all. Concerns were raised at his other nomination today–Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahabad, Taft–that these series of semi-automated edits is in order to game the extended confirmed stats; it may be of note that, per the talk page, this article is in a topic area limited to extended confirmed editors. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Worth noting that, as of this edit of @RangerRus' talk page, the article creator admitted to using LLMs for copy-editing, and was warned against further use of LLMs to those ends at their talk page. (not a vote). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Bihar. WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Leaning keep. I'm relying on machine translation to assess the sources, but it looks like the tale of Minakshi is real and notable. The sources discuss a play (or two plays?) and a novel, both based on the story. Applying WP:NBIO to a fable is obviously a mistake. I'm interested to hear from some Bengali speakers who can better assess the sources. pburka (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Corruption in India. This is a well-known statement and meets notability requirements. However, the line has no meaning if it is not linked to corruption in India. For those unfamiliar, 1 paisa is 1/100 of an Indian rupee. Rajiv Gandhi, a former prime minister, stated it to imply that 85% of welfare spending done by the government is lost due to corruption Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article is devoid of utility. This website does not have a habit of keeping articles in which the subject is a small segment of a statement made by a prominent government official. Aneirinn (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. However, as this is an important admission by a sitting prime minister, it could have a small mention in the Corruption in India article Ar1201u1 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Text-to-image model because both of these articles talk about the same concept, and AI being called art is very controversial CWikiedits1 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Additionally, the article only talks about AI image generation which is not the only form of AI "art". I think that since both articles are talking about the same technology, and the history of the same technology is in one article but not the other, a merger would work well CWikiedits1 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree that the title "AI art" is contentious and should be changed despite WP:COMMONNAME, but Disagree with fully merging both articles since there are differences of scope. Although I do also Agree that information solely related to image generation should be moved to a different article named "AI images" (or something of the sort) DaniPine3 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Disagree This AI art article is about art made with AI. That is, the notable use of AI by notable artists, notable art museum exhibitions, etc. It includes all types of visual art (not just images), and it includes all types of AI throughout art history (not just text-to-image models). Any information that is not about notable art but instead about the topic of like random hobbyists using text to image models to make memes or whatever should just be moved to Text-to-image model. I was planning on working on this after the latest "requested move" discussion is finished, but will start working on this ASAP if that would be helpful. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I have taken many paragraphs out of the AI art that were about the general topic of text-to-image models, and moved them to the article Text-to-image model. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
And I have reverted most of these massive removals of (largely) well-referenced content, since your conception of the term disagrees with multiple RS, see here and WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - That the idea of AI art is controversial is an argument to have the article, not to get rid of it. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose While I'm usually pro-merger, the text-to-image article is primarily about the technology, while the AI art article is primarily about the phenomenon and philosophy. These seem distinct enough with enough content to justify separate articles. I also see Asparagusstar has done a good job transferring a lot content to make the difference between the topics more clear-cut, otherwise I probably would have supported a merge before that. Reywas92Talk 05:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. We've got three broad subjects: the technology, the general social usage of it to create any images at all, and how it has intersected with art. That looks like enough content to fill at least two articles, and too much for just one. With sections including "Antecedents", "Early history and use in conceptual art" and "Analysis of existing art using AI" in the art article, AI and art might be a better title for that one. --Belbury (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose but agree that "AI art" is a way of saying "AI simulated art" because art should always be defined as fully coming from the actions and intent of a creative human. No AI is an artist. But way too many needless merger discussions with the new merge location. Merge is a lazy path to deletion in many cases while in others a way of shortening a topic to one or two sentences in a longer article. True merges should be rare, and rarer still for notable and long-term topics. For this one an RM would work better. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging the page into Social security in India because that article deals with the same subject and has more detailed information. I don't see any need for this to be a separate standalone article Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete for good. No evidence of meeting GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Surprisingly, keep. It's rather blurred out from I don't know what over the years, and there's a gap in the topos during the classic period so I really don't have a great picture of what it looked like in the 1960s except through aerials, but older topos show a town here, and I have found a variety of mentions through the fog of false hits, including mention of a lumber mill, its listing as a post office, mention of a cemetery, but also this apparent commemorative history of the place, which unfortunately I cannot see inside of. So I think this one is real. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Typical decade-old company article created and maintained by single-purpose accounts with no edits from independent users. The claim that "Additionally, BSA was named Top Workplaces featured in USA TODAY in 2024, 2025 and 2026." fails verification - the 2024 list, the 2025 list, and the 2026 list all don't seem to mention it. The rest of the claimed indicia of significance all rest on primary sources ... * Pppery *it has begun... 19:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Not a notable subject and does not belong here. Also, most of the article's content is outdated, as India has had a new tax law in force since April 2026, Income-tax Act, 2025. The subject is too technical to assess the accuracy of the information Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Income tax return (India) as a plausible redirect, though I'm neutral on the target and whether that also needs further updates itself. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete again. Quoting a blog does not make it notable. Several references do not resolve. SenshiSun (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article does not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and China. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment the nomination cites two issues: COI and AI generated text. The COI was frankly disclosed (I am Dan Harris, one of China Law Blog's founders and principal authors. I am also a founder of Harris Sliwoski LLP, the law firm that publishes it. I recognize and disclose my conflict of interest and am requesting restoration for independent review rather than attempting to publish an article about my own work.). I'm not sure why it's an issue here -- COI editors are permitted to edit as long as they disclose. Second is AI generated text. I don't see it. Dan is a lawyer and a blog publisher, and he can produce polished text if he wants to. And I've run it through GPTZero and yes it gives an AI generated outcome, but those tools are notoriously unreliable it doesn't read to me like it's AI generated. Anyway, there's nothing AI generated about the article.So I think this was premature. I do wish that in the time between the REFUND and the time of the AfD there had been some attempt to edit the article, so I can't vote in good faith to keep. But a quick BEFORE search suggests that there are other articles out there which support notability. I'd like to see what can be done before making a judgment.@Pppery didn't notify the temp account and instead notified the creator who hasn't been active since 2008. I've done that now. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to meet notability. Some sources exist but it does not meet the threshold for significant coverage as I understand it. I don't think the subject meets either general notability for bios or specifically for creative bios. Packrat3860 (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm the subject of this article (disclosed COI). On the infobox: I believed a pre-licensed, already-requested photo from my disclosed paid editor was fine to add directly. If that's not the case, understood -- I'll route through the request process from here either way.
On notability: there's a full source packet linked on the Talk page (the "Source packet" section) with page numbers and citations for everything in my research. The ARTnews pieces I sent directly were just the two you specifically asked for -- three other entries in that packet are more central to how I'm actually known publicly, with substantial, dedicated coverage of me specifically rather than a passing mention:
Arizona Republic, January 13, 2002, Section B: Angela Cara Pancrazio, "Pioneer brings arty look to downtown." Front-page feature with a lead photo, continuing to a full page covering my business and three generations of my Arizona family history.
Phoenix New Times, August 2012: "100 Creatives" series, #38 -- a dedicated profile entry.
JAVA Magazine, Spring 2001: "Photographer Wayne Rainey: Developing a Downtown Arts District." A standalone profile.
Happy to scan and provide any of these, or point to specific pages in the packet, on request. WayneRaineyAz (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I think there's been some confusion. I asked for your best 3 sources per WP:3REFS. If you have three substantial profiles of yourself I'll happily take a look at those instead. You can send scans to the same email as last time. Packrat3860 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Scans sent via email.
One more thing I want to mention: setting aside whether any single source here independently satisfies WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO on its own, WP:BASIC specifically works for this kind of case -- "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The sources here cover different parts of the same record -- the gallery reviews above, the 2002 Pancrazio feature, and the Phoenix Arts Commissioner / Shade Magazine coverage. I think that combined picture is the right lens, rather than evaluating each piece in isolation. Thanks again -- glad to go over any of the specific sources further. WayneRaineyAz (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete per WP:CREATIVE. Brief mentions in local and gallery listings do not amount to WP:SIGCOV, and no major-work criterion is met. Kukuryza (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Kukuryza -- a couple of these are more than brief mentions. The ARTnews review from October 2000 ("Wayne Rainey: Bentley, Scottsdale") is a dedicated review of my solo show, and the Arizona Republic piece from January 2003 ("Photographer follows sun") is a dedicated feature on a specific body of work -- neither is a listing or passing reference. Combined with the Pancrazio feature and the New Times profile already mentioned above, that's several pieces substantively about me specifically, not just venues I've been involved with. Happy to point to specific pages or send scans if useful. WayneRaineyAz (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
This is a mass-spammed AI comment -- see ANI thread -- and can be disregarded. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Gnomingstuff — I think this got swept up with the Kukuryza cleanup. I'm not that account — I've posted here over two weeks at normal interval and I can verify any of these sources directly (scans already sent to Packrat3860). Could you uncollapse it? WayneRaineyAz Robert Wayne Rainey III (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Your reply to Kukuryza is not collapsed. Only their original comment is (which is appropriate, ty Gnomingstuff) Packrat3860 (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Note for transparency: my reply above posted while I was logged into an old personal account (Robert Wayne Rainey III) instead of WayneRaineyAz, which is my disclosed account for this process. Same person — me. I'll only post from WayneRaineyAz going forward. Apologies for the mix-up. WayneRaineyAz (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. WayneRaineyAz, autobiographies are disfavored because they almost always have original content. But it's much worse now, because our critics, including powerful men from Boca Chica to Palm Beach, want to use any excuse to take away our charitable status, which would cripple us financially. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Bearian — one correction first: I didn’t create this article. It was started in 2008 by another editor (Store44), years before I had any account here — I’m not the “creator of autobiography,” I’m the subject who later showed up to participate under disclosed COI.
On the broader concern: I’ve tried to stay inside the disclosed-COI process throughout— edit requests through the Talk page rather than direct article edits (one error/exception, an infobox photo, which I flagged and corrected myself), and sourcing sent to Packrat3860 rather than defending from scratch. If there’s a specific gap in the sourcing itself — the Pancrazio feature, the Phoenix New Times profile, or the WP:BASIC combination case — I’m glad to go through it point by point. Happy to have this judged on notability rather than on the autobiography question generally. WayneRaineyAz (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Got it. Less worse. Thank you for your honesty. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Stubbify. The initial sources provided to me did not demonstrate notability. After having a chance to review the second set though, I think there's maybe enough here though. In particular Arizona Republic, Jan 13, 2002: "Pioneer brings arty look to downtown," Angela Pancrazio and Arizona Republic, Jan 2, 2003: "Photographer follows sun," John Villani are dedicated profiles by a reliable source. I think perhaps a better approach is to WP:TNT what's there and then build from verifiable sources. Also I apologize in advance if it's considered untoward to "vote" on my own nomination, but I just hadn't seen those sources yet and I felt like I should clarify how they change my estimation of this article. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I find no sources in my search. The LA Times one is only a brief mention, but is likely the best source... The rest are only mentions or in non-RS. This seems to be PROMO for a non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
As the disclosed paid editor for this article, I want to flag one source that hasn't come up in this discussion yet: Michele Laudig, "Life Savor," Phoenix New Times, January 23–29, 2003, p. 27 — a dedicated, independently-bylined critical review of Rainey's solo exhibition (the "Harvest the Delta" Africa series, Bentley Gallery). It's not a passing mention or listing — it's a substantive critical assessment of the work itself, discussing his methodology and the trip that produced it. A companion piece ran the same week in the Arizona Republic (Villani, "Photographer follows sun," Jan 2, 2003), which Packrat3860 already cited above in moving to Stubbify. Scan available on request. PickandCrush (talk) PickandCrush (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Also nothing found in the Getty ULAN . Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unstated keep with sources that should be addressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - sources added. Mr.choppers|✎ 01:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on the post-nomination sources added....? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 17:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Another nomination of another non-notable team as well as being nadequately sourced. Had a look per WP:BEFORE turns out nothing, making this another non-notable team. BuffaloTaro (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment – "turns out nothing" is a fallacy on the nominator's part. Multiple old news articles come up (as you'd expect from a Superleague Formula and A1 Grand Prix team), primarily in German. Unsure yet whether any constitute WP:SIGCOV but there's quite a lot to look through. MSport1005 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I should've said "turns out nothing but WP:PRIMARY". What are these, are they results and announcement of driver signings, if so, they do not count much for notability and as if people are going to dig this far. I tried to go as far as I can but still, nothing. Editors needs to think objectively, not just them and the small minorities of fans. BuffaloTaro (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
It's also not "nothing but primary". I'm on about the WP:SECONDARY sources on Motorsport-Total, Motorsport XL, Speed-Magazin, etc. — and the Russian and Greek sites. MSport1005 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I do see this place in Google Maps but I couldn't find reliable sources about this article. SVcode(Talk) 17:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Odisha. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
leaning delete In any case the article is a candidate for TNT given that it's almost entirely promotional writing for what is clearly a pretty minor religious institution. If the village shows up in the Indian census perhaps a substitute article could be written but the present article is junk. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable, non-primary sources covering this person. There's also been a lot of WP:COI editing on this article which has been reported at WP:COIN. Strangely, while the article says he was on HGTV, I cannot find much to verify this- perhaps it was just a guest appearance? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Mar Jennings appeared on season 1, episode 12 of the White Room challenge on HGTV. You can find evidence of it on the link here below. Scroll down to cast and crew.
I propose merging to Neurodivergence and LGBTQ people because there is significant overlap between the two articles, but "neurodivergence" is the broader term. May need a history merge with this too. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hmm. While I hear what you are saying about "significant overlap," my lingering concern with this proposed merger is that the "Autism and LGBTQ people" page is specifically about autism, while the other is more broad, so the scope isn't really the same. In fact, the "Autism and LGBTQ people" page has 68 sources (plus 14 in "Further reading") while the "Neurodivergence and LGBTQ people" page has 17 sources in all.
Otherwise, I am further concerned that a merger could dilute, unnecessarily, the information in Autism and LGBTQ people, making it harder for people to find information specifically about, presently:
Autism and sexual orientation (with subsections for "General interest in sexuality," "Sexual orientation of autistic people," and "Gender differences in sexual orientation")
Autism and gender identity (with subsections for "Gender identity of autistic people," "Autigender," "Gender dysphoria in autistic children," "Autistic traits in gender non-conforming and transgender people," "Gender-affirming care for autistic people," and "Mental health of gender diverse autistic people")
autistic LGBTQ+ characters in popular culture.
So for that, I oppose this merger on those grounds. Furthermore, the "Autism and LGBTQ people" page should be kept and not merged into any other page at this present time, and unless something changes, not any time in the future either.
At the same time, I would support adding a paragraph or two to the "Neurodivergence and LGBTQ people" page, which was only created today by @User:Significa liberdade, and split from Neuroqueer theory, which connects it to the "Autism and LGBTQ people" page.
Lastly, the other alternative I see is that the information from the "Neurodivergence and LGBTQ people" page could be merged into a section of the Neurodiversity page. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. The autism article is much more detailed than the neurodivergence one, and a merge would put undue weight on autism in the neurodivergence article, or result in the loss of well-sourced content from the Autism and LGBTQ people article. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I fail to see how he meets WP:NACTOR standards. His “major” role is ten episodes of Cheers as a minor character (he’s not even named for several of them). His IMDB has about another dozen one episode here, one episode there appearances in shows. The three sources provided are his Rotten Tomatoes database entry (not reliable), a book he wrote himself (not reliable), and a couple of sentences mention in a gossip column type fare (not significant coverage). CountryANDWestern (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I totally agree with the nominator. After my own WP:BEFORE the only results are different database entries such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which don't prove his notability. His role in Cheers was a bar customer called Paul in about 8 diff episodes from the first 2 seasons (in 1983), as well as have the name of different unnamed customers roles. This isn't a notable enough role according to WP:NACTOR, should also note that best-known Paul (Krapence) (played by Paul Willson) isn't this character, so the link points to the character played by another actor , not this, who mentioned in article. About sources, Cape Cod Summers is self-published, and the Honolulu Advertiser article being just a simple mention, not a significant coverage. I would advise against redirect, since this name has reference point linked to both Paul Willson and Paul Vaughan.El Banhara (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, Aside from those sources in the article currently, in the Honolulu Advertiser, it's two mentions "Paul Vaughn" and "Paul". I did find more sources about him in Newspapers.com, I found an article from The Columbus Ledger, where at the time, the article talked about how he was a young actor, and the article also talked about how there were hopes in Vaughn succeeding in Hollywood, and that he will be an addition in scenes of Hollywood shows and movies. It's also talked in the article of Anderson Daily Bullentin. I also found an article from The Courier, which talked about his marriage with Heidi, and also one of their children. There was an article from The Honolulu Advertiser, talking about how Vaughn was preparing to leave Hawaii, to make an appearance in ABC Movie of the Week, and it also had a mention that he had an agent for his acting career. There's also an article from Hawaii Tribune-Herald, talking about Vaughn acting in voice commercials, and it also talked about his wife as well. While looking for more, I found that Vaughn was also known as Paul Fithian in one of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles, shown in clippings, which talked a lot about Vaughn, and both are the same person because the Honolulu article mentioned by the nominator at AfD, mentioned how Vaughn met Heidi in the play of Under the Yum-Yum Tree, confirming both are the same person. While looking for more under Paul Fithian, I found another from Hawaii Tribune Herald, talking Vaughn's professional name being Paul Vaughn instead of Paul Fithian, which it talked about he appeared in numerous notable commercials, and that he also appeared in commercials of General Electric, and it also talked about his wife as well. I also found an article from New York Daily News, which talked about Vaughn starring in the play Once in a Lifetime under the name Fithian, starring along with his wife Heidi. There was also one from Honolulu Star-Advertiser, talking about Vaughn being referred as a "teevee actor" in his acting career, as he's been acting for over three years in 1961, and it mentioned that he had a brother named Pete, which is also covered in another Honolulu Star-Advertiser titled "TV Actress, Husband 'Home' For Summer", also talking about that Vaughn is a native of New England, which is also in his self-published book, and that article both talked about Vaughn and his wife. These sources found shows that Vaughn meets WP:GNG, and that WP:SIGCOV is out there for Vaughn, which the guideline for WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Even though he's a bit off WP:NACTOR, where one of his known recurring roles was a character who antagonized Cliff Clavin in Cheers, he still meets WP:GNG with these new sources I found. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Also the link to the article for Paul, still redirects to his recurring character "Paul", stating "Paul (Paul Vaughn) was a bar customer who appears recurringly until "Manager Coach" (1983)". Also I'm not sure if the nominator seen Cheers, he is credited as Paul in many of the early episodes, except for two. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Very limited roles on TV, not enough to show notability here. Sourcing is rather thin as well. I can only find hits about others with the same name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Through a quick search won't work, and quick searches won't be always the answer to finding sources easily about a subject. Please look at the sources above that is not in the article yet. Even if he has 13 roles according to IMDb, having limited roles shouldn't be an issue as long Vaughn actually instead meets WP:GNG from the sources above, as they're shown to also be WP:SIGCOV. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect over Deletion: Per WP:AtD. If deletion is preferred, then I recommend we instead redirect to List of Cheers characters#Paul since that seems to be the primary thing he was known for, assuming there is no conflict with Paul Butterfield. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Instead of it meeting WP:NACTOR, what about the new sources provided above that shows that he meets WP:GNG? There's more out there that I haven't added, and there is also more to Paul's career rather than being on Cheers. He also appeared in television programs, and had commercial roles which I provided sources for in my above vote. I'm not sure what Paul Butterfield has to do with Vaughn, because Butterfield didn't even appear on Cheers. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 13:24, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. If you think you remember a character on Cheers named Paul who was a recurring customer at the bar (i.e. a character whose actor was not listed in the opening credits), the one you are thinking of may be Paul Krapence, played by Paul Willson, who appeared in 55 episodes compared to Paul Vaughn's 10. As an alternative to deletion, redirect to List of Cheers characters#Paul per Super Goku. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Paul and Paul Krapence are both different characters, and Paul does get screen time in Cheers, where he antagonizes Cliff Clavin in the early seasons. There's even scenes on him online, quoting one of the things he said to Cliff Clavin in one of the episodes: "Oh no Cliff, it's uhh.. addressed to anybody who probably get lost in the mail", and that was when Paul was commenting on Cliff not being in an accident in his mail routes. I'm surprised no one bothers to look at the new sources I provided and say nothing about it, mostly focusing on him failing WP:NACTOR. Even though he fails that guideline, he still meets WP:GNG with the new sources above that I provided, and there is more to his career to just being on Cheers. Most of the new sources I provided was before he was on Cheers, and recurring characters don't usually get their names listed in the opening credits, that's only for the main characters and there's a difference. He gets listed in the ending credits, because he's a recurring and not a main, and your vote is like saying "Paul Krapence had more appearances than the other Paul, so Paul Krapence must be the more notable Paul because he appeared more". Why would it matter if Paul Krapence appeared more than the other Paul, they're both different characters played by different actors. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "Blue-eyed Heidi Vaughn (real name: Mrs. Heidi Von Guenthner Fithian) and her handsome husband, Paul, sat on a Portlock lanai and talked about their first 18 months as actors in New York City. ... said 28-year-old Paul, ... The actor-actress couple came home to Honolulu for a vacation after 18 months of acting and modeling in New York City. They left here after their wedding on Halloween Day in 1962 and have marked up an impressive string of show business credits. Paul lived in the Islands two years helping his big brother, Peter, operate a greeting service at Honolulu International Airport. ... Both have appeared in such TV series as "East Side-West Side", "The Nurses", "The Defenders", "The Guiding Light" and "Candid Camera." ... Modeling jobs take much of the couple's time-and supplement their income."
The article notes: "Actor Paul Vaughn of TV's "Cheers" has been hotel-hopping, looking for story ideas for a new NBC series - about a hotel - that he's been signed to create. Paul is here with wife Heidi — they met during the Honolulu production of "Under the Yum Yum Tree" — and daughter Kimberly, who will have roles in the show."
The article notes: "The couple, who were married here Oct. 31, 1962, has appeared in "The Defenders," "The Nurses" and "East Side West Side" television shows and an afternoon soap opera, "The Guiding Light." Fithian is a native of New England. His brother, Peter Fithian, operates a greeter service at Honolulu International Airport."
The article notes: "Heidi & Paul Fithian open in "Once In A Lifetime" off-B'way Jan. 27. Were recently in Hartford, Conn., promoting Hawaii for hundreds of travel agents and airline folks. The kids met while play-acting in Honolulu"
The article notes: "Paul Vaughn and wife Heidi were all set to leave, for Hawaii the other afternoon, when Paul's agent called with a Movie of the Week and Heidi landed a special guest'er on "Dr. Kildare" ("new" TV series). Heidi's a Kona gal"
The article notes: "But most unusual of all, is the fact that the attractive, blonde actress is in her early 20s, is married to Paul Vaughn, and they are parents of a seven-month-old son, Kirk. ... Her husband, Paul, currently Is engaged with voice commercials for several national products and recently addressed 300 agents on behalf of "Greeters of Hawaii.""
The article notes: "The von Guenthners are here from Kona for the wedding, performed in the gardens of Peter Fithian's home. He is the brother of the bridegroom, Paul Fith-ian. Heidi's brother, Dirk, is one of the ushers."
The article notes: "Heidi von Guenthner became the bride of Paul Fithian yesterday noon in the gardens of the Makalei Place home of the bridegroom's brother, Peter Fithian. ... Parents of the bridegroom are Mr. and Mrs. Rosewell Curtis Fithian of Ashland, Mass. ... Her husband attended University of Madrid in Spain and was graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont. A vice president of Greeters of Hawaii, he will be their representative in New York."
The article notes: "Today, the successful young actress, who appears in this Friday's "Death Valley Days" drama on KHVH- TV, is a wife (married to actor Paul Vaughn), a mother (they have a bright-eyed 3-year old named Kirk), and who, since coming to Hollywood, has landed guest roles in four major TV series."
The article notes: "... where she and her actor-husband, Paul Vaughn, are staying. ... And she vividly recalls her early acting days in Hawaii, where she met her husband. "We both were working in 'Under the Yum Yum Tree' for the Oumansky Magic Ring Theatre," she said. "It was romantic ... it took me five months, but I finally caught Paul, she laughed. The Vaughns have been active in the theatre - both on and off Broadway — and recently moved to California, because Vaughn "wanted Kirk to know what grass is. In New York, kids don't know what grass is.""
The article notes: "Her husband, whose professional name is ... Paul Vaughn, is equally popular for his TV commercials,, having been seen nation wide for several years in advertisements for General Electric, makers of cereal, and many others. He also is Heidi's manager. And to make it a family affair, their two year-old son... Kirk, has done some modeling with his mother. The interesting young family lived briefly in Hollywood recently, but returned to New York when Heidi was selected to co-star in the upcoming Broadway play."
The article notes: "Heidi's husband is Paul Vaughn, who was in "In Harm's Way," in a scene with Brandon de Wilde and John Wayne. "He's also up for a part In Hawaii'" she added."
The article notes: "Heidi and Paul Vaughn (Fithian) expect a visit from Sir Stork next July. The isle youngsters keep plugging away at their acting careers; Paul has finished a "Defenders" and Heidi a "Donna Reed Show"..."
The article notes: "Mr. Fithian has two scenes in the Hawaii-made movie, In Harm's Way, and he and his wife are to attend the premiere in New York this evening at the DeMille Theatre."
Several of these are preposterous suggestions in a discussion about notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
In addition to Cunard's WP:SIGCOV find, I also found an article from The Columbus Ledger, which noted: "A charming young actor, Paul Vaughn attended the party. Paul hopes his career will bring him and his family to Hollywood permanently. He'll be quite an addition to the scene", which this news article can be used towards the combination of reliable sources towards Vaughn's WP:SIGCOV, which WP:NOTABILITY stated: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, per Cunard's research. Prior experience tells me Cunard finds the best there is to find, and in this case that seems to constitute no more than a sentence about this individual. These entries do not come close to constituting SIGCOV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
With all the sources combined, Vaughn meets WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and yeah, the sources do talk about his wife as well, but it also talks about him (which Cunard did leave out, and covered the sentences that covers Vaughn). The first source is over WP:100WORDS, the tenth and eleventh sources are also over 100 words, so WP:THREE exists for Vaughn, and not every of the sources listed are just one sentences. There can be more out there in Newspapers.com, but with all the sources provided by Cunard, there is over 800 words combined of WP:SIGCOV from all of the sources for Vaughn, and per WP:NOTABILITY which Cunard stated: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree with MoviesandTelevisionFan that it's incorrect to say that there is no more than a sentence about this individual given that the first, tenth, and eleventh sources are over 100 words, not just a sentence about him, and amount to significant coverage. Paul Vaughn has received enough coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which as MoviesandTelevisionFan notes allows the combination of sources to demonstrate notability. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the coverage is trivial, and moreover, is largely in the context of his apparently more notable spouse. Word counts do not mean much when there is no substance to the source: reporting that Vaughn was traveling with his wife and daughter is trivial, no matter how many words are devoted to it. The first source is the only one I would consider remotely substantive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment:Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. This includes the implementation of any of the named alternatives to deletion listed below, such as redirection and merging."
It is my opinion that the coverage is trivial, and moreover, is largely in the context of his apparently more notable spouse. – I agree that Heidi Vaughn (also known as Heidi Von Guenthner Fithian) has received much more coverage than her husband, Paul Vaughn. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, Paul Vaughn can be merged into a newly created article about Heidi Vaughn. I can work on that and ask that this AfD be relisted to give me time to do that. Cunard (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
A merge would be fine to me, as long as Paul is mentioned, or it could be Paul and Heidi Vaughn because of how the sources still covers them both, and in one of the sources, it had talked about how both of them appeared in the same television programs, and that both had starred in the same play, and also appeared in the same play when they met, but either one can be fine. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
If you were to create an article about Heidi Vaughn, I would support a redirect there. I would not want to see more than a sentence or two of content about Peter, however, as that would be undue, and it is also the extent of truly encyclopedic material we have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think Paul's brother Peter is notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In addition to there being some disagreement on the source notability assessment thus far, the recent creation of Heidi Vaughn may change editors' calculus of what to do with the page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 17:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Some of them are among the "greats" of water polo described here, while Junco was named by one 1969 magazine as one of the best athletes of the year. Arcos was a "prominent" member of the national team who later introduced water polo to the national games and, after his death, had a pool named after him that was used to develop many national team stars until it was hit by a hurricane. Many of them were Central American and Caribbean Games champions and/or won medals at the Pan American Games. Almost certain that some of these are notable if Cuban archives are searched. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
How many reliable sources exist in Cuba? Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
I oppose soft deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
As nom, I'd prefer more participants myself. Let'srun (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect all. I don't doubt that if someone were able to do an archival research project in Cuba, they would be able to find evidence of notability for some of these, and to write reasonable biographies. This doesn't change the fact that we can currently only write a single line of prose about each, and redirecting the titles to the teams represents no loss of information per PAGEDECIDE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion leaning towards redirect, but let's see if there's more participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 16:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to reactions to the Snowden disclosures. I just moved that article so this might feel like a bad faith attempt, but I only just discovered this article, apologies for that. The previous article was moved to make it more consistent with Snowden disclosures. Both articles essentially cover the same subject and should be merged. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH article, sources don't talk about this topic as a whole. Sections could maybe be merged, but linked articles already contain content written here. I think deletion is the most sensible path forward here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Most information on this page was just duplicated from the Sunderland page, with this page containing little to no unique information.
Many other cities, such as neighbouring Newcastle, have a single page for the city and the metropolitan borough, because they broadly overlap. ACoates1 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Support per the reasoning offered by ACoates. It doesn't seem as though it's greatly beneficial to separate the context of the two, as there's a necessary degree of overlap in which the metropolitan area only plays a slightly larger role, and there doesn't appear to be precedent to retain it over the other, which would be the only other logical path forward. The notability principally derives from Sunderland itself, thus its broader administrative area would arguably best be discussed within that context.
Note: I'm not sure the significance of metropolitan boroughs rises to the importance of cities/counties in American administrative practice, which is the analog that I used in making this determination. I'm open to, and invite arguments contradictory to that notion, though.
@Crouch, Swale How roughly do we mean here? Cause the county is the highest authority next to the state government in most states nationwide, and municipalities (including cities) typically fall under their purview; if not, the city is almost exclusively then the next most central government body. What authorities does the metropolitan borough possess that the city doesn’t, or that takes precedence over decisions made at the municipal level?
@CSGinger14: in the United States there are states then counties and then municipalities, in England there are counties then districts and then parishes (or unparished areas) there are 3 parishes in Sunderland district namely Burdon, Hetton and Warden Law and then there are 3 unparished areas that don't have administrative functions namely Houghton le Spring, Sunderland and Washington. Note that the metropolitan borough has city status and parish councils and meetings have less powers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Totally forgot about this, sorry. Pinging outside active AfD editors who may be able to help with a determination, as I really don't know what to do here.
Thanks for the ping. My vote is weak keep - per WP:NGEO it's a legally recognized populated place of a notable division so it's notable, and it does seem like there's at least some information here that would make more sense here than in a combined article - for example discussion of the connections with the other towns in the City of Sunderland (which is the district, Sunderland is the town but there are a few other towns in there too), overall area things, etc. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry, is the proposal we're !voting on to delete or merge? I'm not sure how the municipal system works in the UK, not sure I'm the best one to be asking. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This is an administrative unit that is distinct from the town and includes other settlements. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If I am understanding this correctly it is a merge proposal, and so notability alone is insufficient to keep: PAGEDECIDE arguments, implicit in the nomination, need to be addressed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Notability is sufficient to keep the page. To remove a notable page, there is a need to present an argument that other participants find compelling enough to overcome the presumption of a separate page that WP:N creates. The argument against merge is that an administrative division is a different thing from a city, for example, it has twice larger population (whether it is a good reason to oppose the merge is determined by other participants, not by the closer). The statement in the nomination that Many other cities, such as neighbouring Newcastle, have a single page for the city and the metropolitan borough, because they broadly overlap is partially false, as those cities whose boroughs include other settlements also have separate pages. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the first nomination from 2014 was a traditional deletion discussion based on different concerns, and ended with no consensus. (No opinion on the current proposal.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:17, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, India, and Women. Aneirinn (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
A blog entry for a streaming app. While it does seem to be written by someone with expertise in the field, it only passively mentions Kworb for two sentences and verifies what the site does.
A university website, recommending the site among many to be used for music research.
A passing mention of BTS's stats on Kworb.
A BBC article that merely says "Source: Kworb" at one point when citing streaming data. This is pathetic.
Passing mention of a Reddit user using Kworb data to compile a list of Korn's most-streamed songs.
Paywalled Rolling Stone article that only seems to mention Kworb in passing.
A Screen Rant article that, like the BBC article, only says "Source: Kworb" in one sentence. Again, absolutely pathetic use of sourcing.
A research paper which does not appear to mention Kworb at all.
The site itself.
So far, of the 11 citations, none are SIGCOV. So what did my WP:BEFORE find?
Despite the site being around since 2012, the earliest mention of it on newspapers.com is from 2022, where this article merely name-drops it for less than a sentence. The only other results on newspapers.com were year-end bar graphs published by the Spokesman-Review which contained "according to Spotify and kworb.net".
There were five results on JSTOR, but three were false positives where the OCR misread a different bit of text as "Kworb". One was a book on Korean culture, which contains the line For a detailed list of the most viewed K- pop, refer to the Kworb website, which provides music-related data (Kworb.net, 2022). The other was a book that merely listed Kworb in a table of music data sites.
Every result on GNews was a music gossip site merely regurgitating Kworb data, such as this article with the passage her entry Eclipse has climbed to No. 10 on Kworb’s Worldwide iTunes Song Chart. Likewise, every hit on GBooks was either a music book citing Kworb data, or a false positive.
To quote WP:NWEB: Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance... I was wholly unable to find a single source discussing when the site was founded, who the eponymous "Kworb" founder actually is, or what methodologies they use. There is seemingly zero information about Kworb's existence, just a few sources citing its data for clickbait or impressive-sounding big numbers. It is also listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC as a source to avoid, and is currently a completely orphaned article. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?) 16:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - There is obviously some issues with the article but I don't believe it needs to be deleted. Multiple reliable secondary sources have mentioned Kworb which gives it notability and importance as a music data aggregation service in the mainstream. There are a couple of secondary sources in the article which describe the purpose of Kworb as well as a primary source from the website itself. I am willing to find more sources to support information about the website itself, and removing any unverified or vague information from the prose. The article has sat mainly unedited since last year so I believe there is still an opportunity to improve it.
I propose merging to Vespinae because this is a polyphyletic grouping of species with a NAmE-only common name and no scientific name or equivalent internationally-used name (despite it including Eurasian species), and most information in the article is poorly cited and either common to all of Vespinae or not common between Vespula and Dolichovespula. I do not contest that this term is very commonly used in NAmE, but a separate standalone article is not especially useful -- there is not a lot of information to give that is common between both genera but not common to all of Vespinae, which is backed up by the current state of the article. Jokullmusic 15:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: This may be a polyphyletic group, but it's also a very common (search) term and I would guess the vast majority of readers don't know this is a term that lacks a precise biological definition. Not all Vespinae are yellowjackets, and (in the US at least) the term "yellowjacket" is often mistakenly used to describe other wasps such as paper wasps, so the article serves an important navigational need. It's also reasonably well-sourced (could be better, but so could most articles). As a distant second-place option I could support disambiguation of the term, but again, since most people don't realize this is a broad term for multiple species, I think that would just confuse things. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Hussein because of WP:FORK. We have other spelling variations point to the most common transliteration regularly. For example, with the Hussein page itself, we have Hossain, Hossein, HussainJaneFootball (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Mahdi (disambiguation) because this is just a different transliteration. If the disambiguation page were to be expanded with information about the name, then this would just be WP:DUP.
We commonly have multiple transliterations of foreign names at the same target. For example, Hussain, Hossein, Huseyn all go to the same page.
Whether or not the disambiguation page itself should be split into multiple pages is a different discussion. So that should not affect your vote on this matter JaneFootball (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I am against merging Mehdi into Mahdi as the resulting article would be far too big. I am fine with merging different transliterations if the resulting article isn't too large, but in this case I think we should keep it separate. Different transliterations are usually made into separate pages if the articles get too big. Saluzzo53 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
We can just break the names off. Like for example, look at the Haider page. It is a disambiguation, where it lists the given name and surname also. But if you look at the surname and given name pages, it lists multiple transliterations under the same title. I think we could do the same. Also, there is nothing stopping the page from getting however large because, if we arrange it in alphabetical order, the reader can still easily find materials. @Saluzzo53:JaneFootball (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that is what is commonly done but again, the pages get too long. I know the reader can easily find someone if it's alphabetically, but it is generally bad practice to make disambiguation articles too long. Saluzzo53 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Essentially no mention in reliable secondary sourcing, numerous brief non-in-depth mentions in primary academic sourcing, most of which are not cited in-article. Examples: and more. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This looks AI-generated (e.g. the list under "Key physical characteristics of the primary include", misplaced LaTeX markup). Delete per WP:NOLLM. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete sources are bogus Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH. This is just regular hacking with a political motive. Per WP:ATD could also be merged into hacktivism but not sure if the events are due weight for inclusion there. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
All references are associated with the topic and there is essentially no explanation of the content of the books. Theemausoliam (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I could live with this dependent upon material about the Hendon being included in the B&B article, otherwise this would eradicate all info about the Hendon. Carrying the notion forward, this will require including the history of all former building societies in the articles of their successor institutions. That's likely to be a massive task. Cabayi (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
No notability established in the article, a Google search shows little use of the term outside of Wikipedia mirrors and nothing in reliable sources. Goobab (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Keep: Nominator did not perform a good enough WP:BEFORE. This is a standard term—not something made up on Wikipedia—and you can find it in even the oldest versions of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (such as in the 2nd edition here). Many composers of the era have collections of voluntaries, including John Stanley and Jeremiah Clarke. See also the Trumpet voluntary page. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Sorry about that! During my search, I did see a few uses of the term outside Wikipedia and its mirrors but I just assumed they weren't reliable (YouTube video, a few sheet music websites/classical music repositories). Should've done my due diligence and checked some of the literature on the matter… Goobab (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. In Goobab's defense, I would have nominated this article for deletion as well based on its current form, which is completely unacceptable. As my user name attests, my account literally exists to make articles like this better. I was unaware of its existence until now. I'll do some work on it to clean it up. Since I can play "Trumpet Voluntary" in my sleep, it should be a snap to bring this article up to shape.;) Trumpetrep (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This individual is not notable enough to pass any of our guidelines for notability to have an article on this website. Aneirinn (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete My search found only user-generated reviews and brief mentions. For anyone else searching, the company is now named Ofelia though the software name has not changed. M kuhner (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom, no evidence of standalone notability. Over half the references used in the article are primary. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 13:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Striking this and changing to a merge per below rationales. Honestly don't know why I didn't consider that before. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 19:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge, probably to List of Marvel Comics characters: V, in the spirit of WP:ATD. Volstagg does have an entry in The League of Regrettable Sidekicks, and appears in academic publications like "'Shakespeare in the Park?': William Shakespeare and the Marvel Cinematic Universe", but the amount of commentary may be too little to support a stand-alone article. What I believe once again does not make sense is a pure redirect, as it would point to a section which only contains a link back here. Daranios (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I do not see anything that would indicate that he passes WP:NPROF. Deputy vice-chancellor is a step below vice-chancellor which might qualify. I am not seeing any other indications of academic qualifications that might qualify. My WP:BEFORE did not yield any other relevant sources. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't look like this firm passes WP:NCORP. I went through the sources and they appear to be not actually about Athena Capital, but more about company founders, or trivial coverage with interviews.
The two Forbes links are about the SPACs, Athena Technology Acquisition Corp and Athena Consumer Acquisition Corp. Athena Capital isn't mentioned in none of them and both are mostly based on quotes from company founder Freidheim and other persons.
What is about the venture firm is actually very routine: fund raising news in PitchBook and Bloomberg, Lindsey Vonn joining the advisory board in Globe and Mail (same day as the Business Wire was released), and Fortune making a quote of the founder. That is WP:ORGTRIV and in any case not WP:ORGIND.
CNBC, FT, Bloomberg and HBJ cover the SPAC mergers. The CNBC mentions Athena in one sentence.
No article on Freidheim or the SPACs to redirect to. Delete, or draftify. Notarzan (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
All eleven sources and additional ones like the LA Times provide solely routine coverage not WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, e.g. funding announcements (TechCrunch 2021 and 2025, The Robot Report, Tech Funding News), partnerships and expansions news based on company press-releases similar to churnalism issues (TechCrunch on Segway, The Verge on DoorDash, Axios Chicago), a PR Newswire release, a CB Insights database link. Nothing here or online provides independent, in-depth coverage of the company itself, so Coco Robotics fails WP:NCORP. Notarzan (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deletion or merging to Islamic bioethics or Medicine in the medieval Islamic world because the subject does not appear to require a standalone article, and its relevant content can be covered more appropriately within these broader topics. CtrlZultan (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Medicine. CtrlZultan (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete No other religion has a page for its kind of nursing. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete.Merge per user Bearian. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 07:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the target of the merge, regarding which there is no consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 09:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep or Merge: to Medicine in the medieval Islamic world. This topic strikes me as obviously WP:NOTABLE, given Islam (like Judaism and Christianity) has many strictures and perspectives on good practice that extend to medical care; however, the current article text is a glorified WP:STUB almost entirely focused on pre-modern (medieval) material, which merits use of Medicine in the medieval Islamic world as the merge target if a merge is necessary, for WP:MERGECON, and arguably WP:SHORTTEXT. I think fixing the article is a better course of action, though.
Re, '"no other religion has a page for its nursing"': @An editor from Mars, this feels like a logical corollary to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is notably a bad argument. If the subject is WP:NOTABLE, it doesn't matter if those other pages don't exist: maybe they are not notable, or maybe they are, but no one has bothered to draft something for them, (yet). In either case, Jewish medical ethics, Christianity and abortion, and various other pages on medical topics exist for other religions—because these topics do often come with unique ethical and practical implications per each religion. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep meets notability, long overdue for a standalone articleRenascitur (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 09:15, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Apart from The Globe and Mail, none of the other sources is sufficient to establish notability. The article itself also lacks importance and the recent edits made by the paid editor caught my attention, so I reverted them. Emprine (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The editor in question has denied being paid. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 09:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE in French and English didn't yield anything with SIGCOV. Current sources are PRIMARY and the French Wiki didn't help. Ping me if anyone locates useful sources....I won't mind withdrawing. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
It was only 10 words so its under the 30 word minimum to use the humanizer on. So here it is humanized.
Delete per nomination. Both references are from the schools website. When I looked it up in french all I could find were Onisep and other directories of schools. Not notable per WP:NSCHOOL WP:GNG. Serindalytalk 21:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKESalviogiuliano 08:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 08:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This page was created by a user whose sole intention was to prove that the first Mass in the Philippines was not celebrated in Limasawa. This otherwise obscure Jesuit is only of interest because of his testimony regarding the first Philippine Mass. As he did not achieve anything notable, I suggest deleting the page. Simon Ellistrand (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 08:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
This article is WP:SYNTH. There is not one source describing this as a coherent concept. There are a bunch of different surveillance programs like ECHELON, Trailblazer, Room 641A. Especially the latter is not a global project, but specifically for traffic that is routed through AT&T networks. Any information about specific surveillance programs can be covered in their respective articles. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Do you think if it can be merged somewhere? I see there is a Snowden disclosures. Segaton (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Maybe in a background section, yeah. But I think the text would need to be WP:TNT'd anyway for that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007) as an WP:ATD. Incidents earlier than 2001 can be included as a background to the target. t appears that the content in the page is mostly about the NSA. NSA surveillance is a notable topic, so it should be acceptable with respect to notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that is an appropriate merge target for the entire article because the scope is broader and I don't think there is new info in this article about that subject that can be merged. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about scope and info differences? This page devotes roughly 500 words to 2001-2007 and 250 to the before and after, which can be put into the target as background and aftermath. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Frankly I think we tend to be too circumscribed about the way we do these sorts of things, partly because of the semi-officiality of the process in comparison to activity in the mainspace/talkspace. There's no reason we can't have multiple merge targets, or splice it and dice it as we see fit. In effect, there are no set-in-stone rules that need to guide us here other than consensus. What might be proposed as secondary merge targets?
We could have multiple merge targets for sure, but my point is: we don't need that.
This article is only merging some snippets from other articles together in a single article, suggesting that "Global surveillance disclosures (1970–2013)" is a concept that exists in reliable sources, which it does not.
There is nothing to merge, all information already exists in possible suitable merge targets. Delete is the only viable path here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
The concept that exists in sources is "Global surveillance disclosures", years in brackets are for organizational purposes. The article shouldn't be deleted outright because it contains incoming links from other articles related to this topic. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
None of the sources talk about "global surveillance disclosures" for as far as I can see. They talk about the disclosure of various individual surveillance programs. Those can be discussed in their respective articles. I stand by my original argument that this article is WP:SYNTH.
Incoming links can be removed, that is a standard procedure after article deletion (I think we even have bots for this but correct me if I'm wrong). PhotographyEdits (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose deletion as the principal concern seems to be an issue with content, not inherent notability.
No, that's not the case. It is not possible to write a coherent article on this topic, because "global surveillance disclosures" is not a process that has existed. This article links together subjects in a way that WP:RS do not. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Which is why I oppose deletion, and don’t explicitly advocate keep…see WP:NNC.
Okay, so to clear this up to the closing admin, what do you propose? Merge? PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose the same thing I did earlier, which is that we stop looking at this like there needs to be some absolutist outcome. Let's take a second and think about how we can properly split off the information in a viable way, as opposed to making it an all-or-nothing battle where because a wholesale merge to a singular destination isn't a practical option we just shouldn't bother at all and delete it instead. I consider that to be extremely careless, which isn't something we can afford to be here.
We can relist it for another week. There's no cliff that we're approaching where if we fail to make an immediate determination about leaving the article in the passenger seat we're gonna end up dying with it. Let's slow down and think about the places where the encyclopedic content within a page that might otherwise be considered SYNTH could be placed to ensure that it's preserved, which is what we're supposed to be doing here anyway.
To elaborate, to what extent are you actually confident that all of the information here is just a repeat of what's written in those other articles? Have you checked it line-by-line, or are you presuming that because there's another page that already exists about the topic that the information must already be there? That's my concern. There's a ton of information here, and if the latter notion were necessarily the case then it would just be excerpts from the target pages anyway. I don't want to see encyclopedic content get deleted simply because we figured that it must already be covered at those destinations.
> Have you checked it line-by-line, or are you presuming that because there's another page that already exists about the topic that the information must already be there?
Yes, I did that. They contain the info in more depth. Basically the articles that are already linked. In order, the following articles:
Perry Fellwock
GCHQ
James Bamford
ECHELON
Trailblazer
Russ Tice
Mark Klein
Babak Pasdar
Joseph Nacchio
"2011–2015" section in the WikiLeaks article about the Spy Files
I am confident that no information is going to be deleted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful topic. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Please see WP:USEFUL, this is not a valid argument to use in deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to see if we can get more policy-based !votes Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I find PhotographyEdits' demonstration that this material already exists elsewhere convincing, so a merge is not needed. To keep this as stand-alone we'd really need to see WP:RS talking about this topic as a whole. As it stands I think it's WP:SYNTH. Will change my view if someone finds the needed RS. M kuhner (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Volkswagen EA827 engine because this low-quality article offers nothing to assert notability with no source besides the only one from a wiki site. Had a look per WP:BEFORE turns out barely anything, making this an unnecessary and non-notable article. BuffaloTaro (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
It's only 10 words so it doesnt meet the criteria of the humanizer being at least 30 words. Here is my manual rewrite:
Redirect to Volkswagen EA827 engine nom. Only source is from a wiki. What ive found is mostly about the 1990's rally car such as This not about the engine itself. Not enough notable coverage to have its own page. Serindalytalk 21:05, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Salviogiuliano 07:52, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to BMW S65 as this is nothing but a race version of the production engine (the target article), making this rather unnecessary to exist. Most of the sources are very questionable, thus there is nothing in this article that is of value to be salvaged into the target article. BuffaloTaro (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Out of five citations listed in this three-paragraph article, only one links to a page other than the organization about which the page is written. I've done a brief Google search for the org (as well as a brief Newspapers.com search) and haven't found much in the way of *substantive* coverage--most of the coverage is about use of the standard. A section describing the history of how the ACSM AFI came to be could be interesting and could possibly rescue the article from its citation problems (should whoever wrote that section find sources outside of the ACSM), but it seems unlikely that there's enough coverage to make that happen. AndrewEvans36 (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to News agency because as this article itself currently points out, the terms are often used interchangeably. News agency already covers the distinction between journalism and press release distribution well, and this fork has been redirected three times so far, by two experienced editors. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose redirecting it there because a lot of the usages of newswire do not refer to news agencies, but the commercial sort of PR newswire. If it's not notable then delete it but it doesn't have the same scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
‘’‘Keep’’’ – I support retaining Newswire as a standalone article rather than redirecting it to News agency.
As PARAKANYAA pointed out, the two terms do not have identical scopes.
Organizations such as Reuters and the Associated Press are news agencies that produce, publish, and syndicate their own journalistic reporting. Commercial newswire services, by contrast, primarily distribute press releases and announcements prepared by businesses, public relations agencies, and other organizations.
This distinction is reflected in Wikipedia’s existing coverage. PR Newswire, GlobeNewswire, and Business Wire each have standalone articles describing commercial press release distribution businesses. These services perform a different editorial function from news agencies such as Reuters and AP.
Although the terms “newswire” and “news agency” sometimes overlap, they are not interchangeable in every context. A redirect to News agency alone does not adequately represent the commercial press release distribution meaning of “newswire.”
The article has been revised to remove promotional material, clarify the distinction, and add supporting references.
I support retaining and improving the article so that it explains both meanings accurately, rather than redirecting a broader term to only one of its uses. Pomisthebest (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pomisthebest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
I propose redirecting to 2024 Hajj extreme heat disaster because this article is created by the subject himself (WP:AUTOBIO)) and is known for just one event. Bringing it here because they have challenged my bold redirect. BookishReader (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
See Qamar Muneer Akbar and Qamar Un Nisa Akbar. She is gifted like his brothers but unfortunately due to repeated promotional attempts by the subject and very weak notability, I'm bringing it to AfD for a review. In my opinion, she fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
I believe that this page should be merged with 15.ai for several reasons:
WP:SHORTTEXT - with the information about the website 15.ai and the plagiarism controversy, which is already explained on the company's page, removed, the text of the article is extremely short. Due to the engineer's anonymity, it is unclear if it will get larger anytime soon.
WP:OVERLAP/WP:MERGECON - The software engineer is mostly known for creating the AI model/website 15.ai. As can be seen with the large amount of explanatory text, it is best talked about in the context of the AI model that he created, where it would not require a redundant explainer.
(Possibly) WP:MERGENOT - In the first AfD discussion, which closed as no consensus, it was argued that 15 passed WP:NCREATIVE due to his creation of 15.ai. However, while he is a creative professional, it is unclear if the site or underlying model is a creative work. It was designed purely as a tool to create synthesized voices rather than for artistic purposes. This would be akin to calling Microsoft Office or VLC Media Player a "creative work". The site was notable for its function, rather than its form.
It has been more than 2 months since the only true AfD on the subject, per WP:RENOM, while the more recent one was immediately procedurally closed and I assume it doesn't count towards that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I've already repeated my arguments multiple times, so I'm just going to copy paste my previous edits:
WP:SOFT explicitly states Computer programs are creative works. What we're discussing is the software that 15 designed and developed, so the AI is not doing the creating. Its ability to generate speech does not negate his authorship of the software itself.
WP:GNG stipulates that addresses the topic directly and in detail, and indeed, there are multiple sources that discuss his research, startup career, his educational background, etc. Those are biographical. If we decide to arbitrarily set aside the sections about what he's best known for, then of course that would remove much of the career coverage on which notability rests. That's an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of WP:NOPAGE that many other biographies would certainly fail to qualify for notability under.
(I'm well-aware of WP:WHATABOUT; I'm simply pointing out that this line of thinking implies that, for example, Satoshi Nakamoto would fail to qualify for his own article because every single biography about him hinges on his work on Bitcoin. Imagine if we said "Satoshi Nakamoto isn't notable because if we remove all the information from his article relevant to Bitcoin, then we'd have very little personal information about him, so we should merge his article to Bitcoin instead"?)
Just because there is minimal private-life information, it does not invalidate the existence of such coverage. Excising biographical and career information like this and reducing the "substantive content" into a single paragraph is not grounded on any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of.
Even if we disregard WP:SOFT, that seems like a rather arbitrary argument. The implication that a creator of a very well-known work fails to meet WP:CREATOR just because it involves creating it on a computer is a very strange line to draw. What about a video game? Is the article for the creator of Doki Doki Literature Club, Dan Salvato (which I see you've actually promoted into mainspace), not contrary to your argument? If we apply the exact same standards you're suggesting, Salvato also has a single paragraph to establish his notability. Why shouldn't we merge this article into Doki Doki Literature Club, in that case? Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, even if we are to disregard WP:SOFT as not being official policy, where in WP:CREATOR does it stipulate that the work created must be a creative work? Criterion #3 says: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or. Nowhere does it require that the work must be strictly considered a "creative work". The guideline says This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals., which per the nominator (while he is a creative professional), applies to 15. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. My reading of WP:NCREATOR, is that the person must be a creative professional, without an additional requirement that their qualifying work have an artistic purpose. A quick search shows that the precedent has been applied to chess engines (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hyatt), file transfer protocols (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Forsberg), and news server software (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Salz). All three discussions closed as keep/nominator withdrawal upon the invocation of WP:NCREATOR. I therefore do not see a basis for categorically excluding 15.ai from criterion 3 merely because it is a functional tool. Madeleine(talk) 18:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The policy clearly says "work" and gives works of media as examples. It is a big stretch to interpret that as a purely functional program. Interpreting WP:NCREATIVE to also include inventors and engineers is not something it was designed to encompass, and saying that they merely had to have created something at some point unrelated to what they were known for is following the letter and not the spirit of the policy.
Certainly you can point to other discussions where this was not upheld, but WP:CCC means there is no "judicial precedent" on Wikipedia.
Anyway, that is only one of my arguments and probably the one I am least certain of. Even if we assume he is notable, the page is slim. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:23, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The page being slim is insufficient. Robert Hyatt is even shorter and there is very little chance that article will be expanded. Madeleine(talk) 19:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep For one, they're both GAs. For two, 15.ai got 90k views this month, and 15 got 12k views. If 12,000 people a month want to look at something, that strongly speaks against merging. 15.ai has obvious standalone notability. 15 also has standalone notability, what with the Guardian article and other coverage. I'm not sure why we're arguing about NCREATIVE when the GNG is met. They're also still making new projects that keep getting coverage. 15.ai is already a pretty long article; merging in 15 would not be a good use of space. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see what supports for a Good Topic have to do with endorsing a merge or not. There's no proof whey went over and analyzed the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I've already posted talk page messages to everyone who participated in the discussion (per WP:APPNOTE, of course), but I'll give them a courtesy ping if they'd like to briefly chime in. @NRP @JisharaSilvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as GA reviewer. I think GNG is met, NCREATIVE is definitely met, standalone notability has been shown by both articles, and 15 is definitely creating new stuff. Neither article is short - 15 is around 900 words, and 15.ai is 4800. As such I don't see there being any valid reason to merge. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep 15 pretty easily meets GNG and warrants a standalone article. NRP (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per GA reviewer and nominator. Not only is WP:NCREATIVE met, but its also a good article which means it should never be nominated for deletion/merge. All GAs are notable and should never be nominated for deletion or merge because a GA should be broad enough and 730 words is quite long for a normal article (already double the median of 350), but just about enough for GA. Not to mention its also nominated for good topic which makes it even more better. JuniperChill (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I'll admit I'm not a fan of the back-to-back use of primary sources for 15's other projects, but he meets standalone creator/creative notability criteria in general. The text of quite a few smaller, academic-backed articles about BLPs tend to be "this person did a thing, here's their research, and here's secondary analysis of this research". Silvers Rayleigh is quite good at this specifically, but that academic backing could be done a little better here. travismulch 19:24, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, 15 meets the GNG for biographical pages and is definitely notable per User:Jishara. (15.ai was everywhere, and I mean everywhere, my friends would all be using it and making memes during the free period, it was super addictive.) TokiPony (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)—TokiPony (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 October 17 following a previous non-admin close of "snow keep" after 29.5 hours. An admin need not necessarily wait another seven days before closing; see WP:RELIST. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: The article was updated since the DRV closed with more information that could not possibly be merged to the target. I disagree with the reopening of this AfD. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. As I explained at the DRV:
WP:SHORTTEXT was answered with word counts and a shorter comparable biography.
WP:OVERLAP was answered with biographical coverage and other projects beyond 15.ai, alongside concerns about expanding the already substantial target article.
WP:NCREATOR objection was answered with the specific wording of criterion 3.
These were substantive arguments against merging. I remain unconvinced by the claim that participants were answering a strawman or had failed to consider the proposed merger.
Since then, the article has been expanded further with additional information about 15's fandom activity and personal information, which is biographical material about his activities beyond 15.ai and would have no place to be merged into that article, going against the recommendations of WP:MERGE. Digitalfolklorist 05:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The expansion does not appear to utilize any sort of WP:RS? I am not sure it's actually admissible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Literally everything that was added in the expansion is admissible due to WP:SELFSOURCE, as Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Self published statements and information do not back up the idea that this person is well-known in the public eye for more things than creating 15.ai, which is the gist of my point on why it should be merged as an overlapping concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm completely lost on what your argument is. Not only was your nomination extremely poorly argued to begin with, but now you're trying to convince people that WP:SELFSOURCE no longer applies because... of WP:OVERLAP somehow?? I've reached my limit of frustration at this point by this nonsense and this whole dragging out every single available bureaucratic avenue just to block the Good Topic nomination, so please don't respond to me anymore. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SELFSOURCE has nothing to do with notability. You can't make yourself notable. It's fine for information used in an already notable article, but since there are no reliable sources currently identified that actually demonstrate this person is independently notable of the company, you can't base a stand-alone article on WP:SELFSOURCE. Otherwise then we'd all be notable. SportingFlyerT·C 10:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I never said anything about WP:SELFSOURCE establishing notability. My notability argument rests on WP:NCREATIVE; SELFSOURCE was cited to address the sourcing of additional biographical details within its stated limits. That's a completely separate question from establishing notability. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
'Independent notability' is not a concept used anywhere in policy, despite many editors trying to employ it as a concept. Katzrockso (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Digital folklorist. Moreover, the DRV discussion established that the subject is notable, but was split on whether the subject should have its own standalone article due to WP:MERGEREASON. However, the article has since been updated with more information directly pertaining to the personal life of the subject that cannot be cleanly merged into the 15.ai article. Ergo, the article must be kept, as the alternative would be to arbitrarily throw away interesting, relevant information about the subject. Shanky94 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As said above, I disagree with the claim that because more information was added, it cannot be merged. If the information is not from WP:RS, it would potentially violate various rules, including WP:REPUTABLE and WP:GACR6. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge I asked for this to be re-opened because having reviewed it during the DRV, I am absolutely convinced this is not eligible to be a stand-alone page. First, this is a WP:BLP who does not meet WP:GNG. While WP:NCREATIVE might technically be met, there is not enough reliable, secondary information about them in the sources provided in the article. The only good articles oddly are from the Guardian Nigeria and the Independent Nigeria which need to be viewed with caution per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. All of the other sources in the article are about the org, not about the person, further meaning WP:OVERLAP applies. Wikipedia policy essentially requires this to be merged. Being expanded further hasn't uncovered reliable secondary sources. Everyone has asserted WP:GNG is met, but the sources in the article are similar to (doesn't mention them at all), (doesn't mention them at all), #2 doesn't mention them at all, Towards Data Science doesn't mention them at all... This is a self-published blog which cites Wikipedia and says this person is very reclusive... There is just nothing here which suggests they are eligible for an article under WP:BLP per our actual policies. SportingFlyerT·C 09:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy essentially requires this to be merged.WP:OVERLAP is neither policy, nor does it mandate a merger. The same exact page's WP:NOMERGE advice cautions against merging where the result would be too long or clunky, or where the separate topics could be expanded into standalone articles. Other participants have raised that exact issue here. WP:N permits presumed notability through either GNG or an SNG, and since WP:NCREATIVE is met, the GNG point is moot. Reviews focusing on 15.ai do not, by themselves, disqualify its creator from a standalone article, and a proposed merger still needs to be justified under WP:NOPAGE. Here, a separate biography is helpful to readers: it presents his education, career, projects, and personal life separate from 15.ai as a coherent account, while keeping 15.ai focused on the software itself. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
since WP:NCREATIVE is met, the GNG point is moot That's not how this works: NCREATIVE implies WP:BASIC has been met, which... it just hasn't here. See WP:BIOSPECIAL. NCREATIVE also requires WP:BLP to be met, which it isn't due to a complete lack of viable secondary sourcing. If you take out every single primary source from the article, there is nothing left about the subject in the article.
I know I'm arguing against a big consensus here, but if this article were at AfC I would have confidently failed it due to lack of sourcing. SportingFlyerT·C 13:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Per WP:SNG: Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Adequate sourcing has not been demonstrated for this article. SportingFlyerT·C 15:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict what Jishara said. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a difference. WP:GNG "presumes" notability. WP:NCREATIVE says "likely" notable. The reason it says "likely" notable is because it still needs to be properly sourced, per WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic.
There is currently not a single reliable secondary source identified covering this engineer. As noted the best two are not reliable due to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. SportingFlyerT·C 08:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge My view is the same as I had in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 (software engineer), with the caveat that the article was expanded with irrelevant fluff, such as the person's elo on Chess.com (???), and other content that is exclusively based on primary sources, like #Other projects — which does not help in establishing 15's notability. In fact a lot of the information should be trimmed due to its overreliance in primary sources. Other than that, I repeat what I said before: "I am not seeing WP:GNG being met, and I believe WP:NOPAGE applies here. The article is very short and there is not much reason to split it from 15.ai. There is about one or two sentences that are actually about 15 himself" [other than irrelevant info from primary sources, which does not help establish notability]. "The other content is 100% about 15.ai or the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal." Skyshiftertalk 14:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge I largely agree with Skyshifter and SportingFlyer. The goal, I believe, of this project is to be a service for readers. And in this case, even presuming GNG is met, readers are best served here by merging the two pages, as readers are probably looking for information on both the company and the creator. And since the creator is both anonymous and synonomous with the company, it makes more sense that the pages should be combined. --Enos733 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NCREATIVE#3. The article is long, according to WP:SIZERULE, 900 words is longer than 75% of articles on this site. Readers are obviously interested in his biography, and it is nice to have a reasonably sized page that contains whatever is available. The idea that merging is better because it provides "context" is false, because readers mostly use mobiles, which are not suitable for longer reading sessions, and in general, people just do not read; shorter and self-contained pages are therefore preferable. Merge supporters above, who allegedly care about the readers understanding, said "demonstrate this person is independently notable of the company" and "readers are probably looking for information on both the company and the creator". This is quite telling, as the subject is not famous for founding a company, but for creating 15.ai which was a free, non-commercial web application and research project. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the merge15.ai article is a GA at 116,264 bytes and is about the application, while 15 (software engineer) is about the person who created the application, but also talks about many things with no direct relation to the 15.ai article. Things are clearly better organized the way they are now, and it would be very strange to deny this GA article the right of existing. P.S. Just to mention another article, about something different, but the analogy is clear: Lean (proof assistant) was created by Leonardo de Moura, and we keep the articles separate, as it should be. Let's not waste editors' time and energy on this discussion, as it could be way better used elsewhere. MathKeduor7 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge. I agree with the nomination and with Skyshifter's reasoning, there really isn't anything about this article that users arent better served reading about at 15.ai and randon additions like their chess ELO or CSGO rank or the fact that they have aphantasia is just trivial facts about a person who is popular within a niche fandom. All of the highest quality sources are discussing different topics such as the 15.ai website or the nft controversy while picking some tidbits about the mostly anonymous creator out of those articles is okay there really isn't anything substantial there about the subject and the other sources are mostly primary sources which is fine for some things I guess but if an article is going to say in wikivoice that someone has three degrees from a prestigious university that feels like something that needs more than just trust me bro from the subject thenselves lol. Chrhns (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE; note that I am striking this after the discussion was reslisted by DRV. Toadspike[Talk] 00:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
A note to anyone reading this: this is a sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems / Ibnqirtaiba, with the exact same MO of making multiple accounts just so they can try to get the 15.ai-related articles deleted. I knew this would happen the moment the AfD got reopened. They have a very, very, long history of trying to get these articles deleted and/or merged, and I urge you to read the whole SPI to see how they've been harassing and hounding me wherever I edit on Wikipedia. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge - per SportingFlyer. This is a WP:PAGEDECIDE decision. That requires us to look beyond whether the information is kept or not. All !votes here are for keeping in some form. The question is where the information is best placed. On the sourcing available, I think that should be on the merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:PAGEDECIDE implies that the topic is notable. The problem here is that this particular person has not been shown to be notable. Merely meeting an SNG/NCREATIVE isn't enough if there is no reliable secondary coverage at all. SportingFlyerT·C 23:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
True. There are people here claiming it meets GNG. I don't see it, but a closer is likely to look at this and see a disagreement on that point. But my point is that even if there is no consensus on the notability, PAGEDECIDE matters in merge and needs to be addressed. To be clear, however, my "per SportingFlyer" constitutes my agreement that they are not independently notable, and GNG/ANYBIO is not met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. That's now three merge supporters, including the nominator, who are describing 15.ai as a company, even though its opening sentence, identifies it as a free, non-commercial web application and research project. That basic factual error is concerning, and the stricken sockpuppet merge !vote already adds to my unease about this discussion. I'm concerned that this AfD is becoming DRV Part II of the broader WP:NOPAGE disagreement at the DRVs 15 (software engineer) and 300-page iPhone bill, which may be encouraging editors to cast a !vote without actually having paid close attention to the AfD at hand. Digitalfolklorist 01:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps just a coincidence, but all three of them did indeed come from DRV. It's quite funny reading that people are proposing to merge an article without even having read the target they're proposing, especially since I was the primary author of both articles.:) Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I would say 15.ai broadly fits within WP:NCORP, even if it is a web application and research project. - Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I would also say WP:NCORP applies to the 15.ai page. I'm not sure how that is relevant though. My entire concern is that the software engineer is one of the most poorly sourced BLPs I've ever seen, relying heavily on primary and unreliable sources. No one has addressed this. SportingFlyerT·C 08:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I presume this is not talking about me, as I neither came from DRV nor called the product a company. I also have been a long term watcher of this page and the merge target. But whoever it is aimed at, it is bad faith to impute motive to editors, or to suggest they are not familiar with what they are discussing. It is also partisan to call out one side without considering the other. I would suggest striking these comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to 15.ai. I don't see notability independent of the application he made that justifies a separate biographical article since there's substantial overlap here. Most of the sources in the Personal life and Other projects sections are primary sources that do not contribute to notability – a inappropriately massive amount of text is cited to his website and his X posts. Reywas92Talk 13:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including interviews, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Tagged for notability since 2018, does not pass WP:NSONG. The creator (currently blocked) also made no attempts to first expand the main article's section before creating a separate article for this single. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Related to Moelis & Company's India brand. 3 sources have been cited, 1 is YouTube, another is an archived link to Reuters which discusses a number of individuals and last one is a primary sources. The subject does not pass WP:GNG.
This article has fundamental BLP issues, including that includes self-published claims (e.g. PubPeer, EarthArXiv preprints) of misconduct against living people, such that it would need to be entirely rewritten from the ground up to be acceptable as an article. I don't really think this controversy is really best placed to be a standalone article anyway. I think that coverage of this issue would probably be better off in a much condensed form in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and Dark oxygen articles, where it could be presented in context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Stubbified just as I was making the AfD, here's the pre-stubification version: . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to 'Dark oxygen', in very condensed form per Hemiauchenia. The current article is entirely unacceptable for multiple reasons, and a separate article, even if policy-compliant, would appear to be undue. We don't have articles on every disputed scientific paper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Dark oxygen which discusses various methods of such oxygen production. This isn't the only one. Don't merge until the dust settles about whether the paper has to be retracted, and then wait for secondary sources. While we do have articles about scientific controversies (which is what the unstubbed article was), such as Cold fusion, this one does does not have wide coverage. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per StarryGrandma. Whether parts of the content should be added to that page can be debated on the talk page there if people are interested.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Dejoriver. From them: "There's two pages that I was trying to combine. KNUV and KRPH but I was having issues. Instead of two separate pages sharing the same details I wanted to merge them" ~ A412talk! 01:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Arizona. ~ A412talk! 01:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
For KNUV, am I able able to change the name to "La Onda Radio KNUV/KRPH" Dejoriver (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not providing a formal opinion at this time, but as a station that signed on in the 2010s I'm skeptical at best as to whether KRPH has the notability to warrant an article at all. I'm certainly not formally opposing some form of a merger into KNUV, but probably not in the form Dejoriver is intending. (The stations had distinct histories before 2025 in any event, so there isn't as much OVERLAP as they are suggesting.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I think a merge is doable and support. KNUV (1190) is a station that definitely should have an article in its own right. But the 99.5 facility has been a fringe rimshot for a long time and might be a GNG fail. It went on as a Spanish-language station run by a company called Deportes y Música Comunicaciones, under which its operating record was so sporadic that the FCC fined it and issued a short renewal. (The company's other station, KQMX, was a rimshot targeting Bakersfield and similarly may be a GNG fail.) It briefly aired MeTV FM before being acquired by La Promize (after the owner bought the station without its previously accompanying FM translator, a big swing and a miss!). You could probably add KRPH to KNUV using {{Infobox radio station dual}}. I would advocate, despite the branding obviously prioritizing the FM, for KNUV to be the article title. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I would never have created the KRPH article today. Our understanding of notability for radio stations is way less permissive than it was a decade ago. An equivalent station today would be a state list redirect. A note from me: A merger is not advised when both simulcasting stations are independently notable, but that is not the case with this set. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to List of DC Comics characters: B#Bernadeth due to her secondary sources consisting of DC Comics encyclopedias which cover many characters, and routine voice acting and list mentions. Emcgonigle (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Comment: Worth noting that, as of this edit of @RangerRus' talk page, the article creator admitted to using LLMs for copy-editing, and was warned against further use of LLMs to those ends at their talk page. (not a vote). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree that the title "AI art" is contentious and should be changed despite WP:COMMONNAME, but 
Disagree with fully merging both articles since there are differences of scope. Although I do also 
