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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comment: The editor in question has denied being paid. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)