Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Video games. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Video games|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Video games. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2015) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Video games-related deletions

List of libraries owned by Skydance

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

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Largely original research; also, WP:NOTCATALOG. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

@RandomMe98 ~2026-57461-17 (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep all These are valid spinout articles. Too much to list in the main articles. Listing all the valid things a company owns, most with their own articles, is valid information. Dream Focus 09:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The problem is not simply that merging these back into the company articles would bog them down (this isn't even a merge proposal anyway, but a bundled traditional deletion discussion), but that their contents are original research and NOTCATALOG contraventions that are prohibited in any article (standalone or otherwise). Any validity of the information does not preempt policy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep all, are useful pages for research GabrielLupin (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

That these lists are potentially useful does not preempt policy, especially when they involve OR or any part of WP:NOT. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete These pages have always been poorly researched, always have edit wars and vandalism that waste the time of admin and regular editors, and their sourcing is always improper or just an aside in an article that can be proven false. We're not a corporate IP gazetteer, and anyone coming here with an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument is advised to actually read the articles and see the poor and unstandard listings for themselves. Nathannah • 📮 16:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: it's one thing to simply list the subsidiaries of media conglomerates (as we do elsewhere), but framing it as a list of libraries comes pretty close to being a grander-scale version of the likes of a list of all books published by HarperCollins that NOTCATALOG specifically disallows, and are invariably prone to original sesearch. While by itself being susceptible to policy violations (e.g. the aforementioned edit wars) is not a P&G-based reason to delete, every now and again that can demonstrate how the pages' existence themselves aren't exactly P&G-based either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Video games, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Mudkip

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose redirecting to List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip. The article fails WP:GNG and is mostly unchanged from the last AFD. While there are some useful sources, there simply isn't enough to build an article around, especially with most sources on here being either primary, unreliable, or listicles. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The article confuses the reliable Kotaku with the unreliable Kotaku.au, not to mention the GameFAQs citations. I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now, but I am interested in potentially taking another look at this later when I have more time. Hence, I'll save my !vote for later. Nevertheless, the things I saw after a brief skim don't give me much confidence. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 01:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Kotaku Australia citation is from 2011, predating Kotaku's brief turn to unreliability and selling of Kotaku Australia to the content farm you reference by a decade. (Archive.org). It does not amount to much, thought 1brianm7 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten when it had been sold and was also quite tired when I wrote that. Still, it could have been worded better in the article's prose if you ask me. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:37, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore redirect Nothing changed compared to previous AfD. Still a WP:GNG failure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Restore redirect Nothing has changed since the original AfD content-wise. This article continues to remain non-notable, and its redirect should be restored and consensus upheld. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I deleted almost all of the unreliable sources and added 3 new ones. Do you think that they help at all with making this article pass WP:GNG?

New editing editor (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

All I see added are three Wikipedia:VALNET sources, which do not contribute notability to the subject per past consensus. I'm afraid my stance is largely unchanged. It would take some hefty Wikipedia:SIGCOV to sway me and everyone else here, most likely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

On the VALNET page, it says it can stilled be used for general pop culture topics or game information. Also, how do you know the other two are owned by Valnet? New editing editor (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Restore redirect as above - this would seem to fall well below the bar set for character notability. Feels like a collection of comments and popular culture quotes rather than something able to convey a convincing basis for notability. VRXCES (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Restore redirect. I see in the page history that users attempted to restore the article, even when there was consensus to redirect the page to List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

15 (software engineer)

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

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)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. 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. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep Per Silvers and Madeleine. Since this Afd nomination is a continuation of Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/15.ai/archive1, should those Supports be grandfathered in? Bronymike2010 (talk) 20:09, 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)

@Zxcvbnm: What? They literally wrote that they GA reviewed the article. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 21:06, 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 @Jishara Silvers 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 per User:CaptainEek. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:25, 16 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. travis mulch 19:24, 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. Digital folklorist 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. SportingFlyer T·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. SportingFlyer T·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. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:NCREATIVE doesn't require WP:GNG to be met - it also doesn't require WP:BASIC. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:48, 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. SportingFlyer T·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. SportingFlyer T·C 08:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The Guardian (Nigeria) is indeed a reliable source. It is one of the longest standing and most reputable Nigerian news sources. Your dismissal of it per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is precisely the incorrect usage of the shortcut that was recently discussed at WP:RSN. Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have addressed this and the other issues with those articles below. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 28 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)
And I am also convinced in this case, per the source analysis below provided by SportingFlyer, that GNG is not met in this case. - Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 28 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 merge 15.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)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 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)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Artificial intelligence, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 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. SportingFlyer T·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. Digital folklorist 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. SportingFlyer T·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/redirect to 15.ai. I do not see any notability or content that justifies a separate biographical article here. There is substantial overlap here, and the only content sourced to reliable independent sources is all already covered in the 15.ai article, being about the application rather than this person. Most if not all of the sources in the Personal life and Other projects sections, as well as the top of the Education and career section, are primary sources that do not contribute to notability – a wildly inappropriately massive amount of text is cited to his own website and his own recent X posts that shouldn't even be retained here if this were to be kept, plus a few brief mentions on marginally-reliable websites. Without this bulk of undue content not covered in substantive independent sources, there is simply not a biographical article to be had, with the rest duplicative of what's in the application's article and the sources all in the context of 15.ai's development. Many sources only mention 15.ai and not 15 at all, making this a textbook WP:REFBOMB. I strongly do not believe NCREATIVE can apply when there's simply no reliably sourced biographical coverage that can form the basis for a biography. Even if computer programs are creative works, NCREATIVE does not mean their creators are automatically entitled to inherit their notability on a standalone page that repeats the same information. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge – Per Reywas92. Most of the page is useless fluff that is either unfit for an encyclopedia or which heavily WP:OVERLAPs with the article about 15.ai. Even if the engineer were independently notable, it's best to cover them together with 15.ai per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The content is worth keeping, just not as a separate page. FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, per Kelob2678 and User:MathKeduor7. As an ADHD-diagnosed, avid Wikipedia reader usually reading on mobile or tablet, I found having a focused biography helpful and much easier to follow. I like how it presents 15's background and career together, along with a nice concise summary of 15.ai, which is what he's best known for. And, if you want to, the main-article link to 15.ai lets readers choose if they want to read that in full depth. I very much don't agree that merging 15 into 15.ai would benefit Wikipedia or its readers, especially for accessibility reasons. 15 is notable per WP:CREATIVE, and per WP:NOPAGE, how it is set up right now better serves Wikipedia's goal of helping readers understand the subject. From how many people have said Keep so far, people are obviously interested in having a standalone biography article, meaning that we would inconvenience many readers if we merge. Plus, there are actually TWO potential merge targets, 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, and it's not clear which one is better, so the obvious choice is to not merge at all. I FREAKING LOVE MEMES (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- 15.ai is obviously the appropriate target since it even has the 15.ai#2022: Voiceverse NFT controversy section that also links to that article, and the scandal is subtopic of that. I believe there is simply no "background and career" to speak of, since literally the only thing actually covered by reliable independent sources is that he attended MIT. All other coverage is about the development of 15.ai and its plagiarism, not a focused biography, and being in Y Combinator and being "one of the most famous people in the brony fandom" is also in the main article. WP:ACCESS does not require additional redundant articles just to provide "a nice concise summary", which is also what the lead section is for. — Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
  And WP:ACCESS doesn't PREVENT a standalone article for ease of understanding if the subject is notable, and I think he's notable. You're proving my point, though. If all this information is spread across the whole 15.ai article, then by forcing someone with ADHD to read through the whole 15.ai article when it could have substantially easier if it was a standalone article, it would be making life harder for them for no reason other than "it's the rules", in which case I call upon WP:IAR and ignore it. If it benefits Wikipedia and its readers as a whole, especially for marginalized groups, it should be done. I FREAKING LOVE MEMES (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't have ADHD, this is a great point that never crossed my mind, actually. I think this is a very strong argument against merging. Under the presumption of notability bestowed by WP:CREATIVE, WP:PAGEDECIDE asks us to always base these decisions upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and WP:SIZE explicitly identifies attention span, readability, organization, information saturation as reader concerns. That's a very concrete example of how the present arrangement is superior to any of the merger arrangements. Digital folklorist 21:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:CREATIVE does not give a presumption of notability. It says a person is likely to be notable if they meet the criteria. You are only presumed notable if proper sources exist which we can use to have an article. None have been provided yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of WP:CREATIVE, and so do many others in this AfD. Digital folklorist 22:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
What exactly do you disagree with? It literally reads Such a person is likely to be notable if and does not use the word presume at all! By that same token, why does everyone in this AfD think this particular person is exempt from the strict sourcing rules of WP:BLP?!? SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Please be WP:CIVIL. I won't indulge you with a response if you can't hold a civil conversation. Digital folklorist 22:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm honestly unsure how asking for sources to be provided in a contentious BLP AfD is being uncivil. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
The sources used in the article are sufficient for the purpose. Hope this helps. Katzrockso (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
You can't just say they are sufficient - you need to show why they are sufficient. Here is my source analysis. Not a single source currently in the article is significant, reliable, and/or independent of the subject:

1. Automaton-media. Only mention of him is that "Engineer 15 has released the latest version (machine translation)." Not significant.

2. Czornik article. Mentions 15.ai in one sentence being released by an "anonymous researcher." Does not mention him otherwise.

3. Lamorlette article. Only mentions the creator has a Patreon page up for further development. Also says the company is the source of the article. Not significant, potentially not secondary.

4. Not a bad article, but fails WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA.

5. Bolocan article. Brief mention of 15.ai, no mention of engineer.

6. PC Gamer article. Does not mention engineer at all.

7. Rock Paper Shotgun article. "The creator has a lot more than that planned." is the only reference to engineer. Not significant.

8. GameInformer article. Does not mention engineer at all.

9. Kotaku article. Only mentions 15.ai was made by one person while linking to 15.ai when saying that. Not significant, potentially not independent.

10. La PS4 article. Does not mention engineer at all.

11. Towards Data Science article. Notes no one knows who created it. "Community publication."

12. Sorta Insightful. Self-published blog, not good for notability.

13. Player.hu. Only mentions one person created it.

14. Not a bad article, again fails WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA.

15. A message board.

16. Techpoint.africa. Compares alternatives to 15.ai, does not mention the engineer at all.

17. Stevivor. Only mentions the engineer posted on twitter. Not significant.

18. AIAAIC. Has only two sentences just noting that the creator of 15.ai called out a plagiariser. Not significant.

19. A database. Has a metro.co.uk article attached, only mentions the creator accused them of plagiarism on twitter. Not significant coverage, posting the tweet is not secondary coverage.

20. Plagiarism Today. Only mentions the creator called out the plagiariser. Not significant.

21. A list of guests at a convention. Not... anything related to notability.

22. Equestria Daily. Does not mention engineer at all, does not appear reliable.

23. Website for a convention.

The remaining sources are all clearly identified as primary within the article and make up the bulk of the biographical information which is a WP:BLPSELFPUB #5 issue.

It's a hard topic to do a source search for, so if additional sources exist, I'm happy to review them and will even change my !vote if the subject passes WP:GNG. But everyone is just saying "this is fine" and it's clearly not. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not a bad article, but fails WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. You need to re-read WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and WP:RSNG more carefully because this is a shocking thing to be saying in an AfD, especially coming from an apparently experienced editor who has been on Wikipedia longer than I've been alive. The point of NEWSORGNIGERIA is to exercise caution when dealing with such sources, as blatantly promotional sources will be evident from reading the blatantly promotional sources. By your own admission, the content of the articles themselves are fine, especially since those articles were published while 15.ai wasn't active, hence there was no product to be promoting. You can't just take good sources, and then discard them solely for being Nigerian. This is very eyebrow-raising, if not outright racist. Digital folklorist 01:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:BASIC explicitly says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The coverage of 15 for his development of 15.ai, as well as his actions during the subsequent Voiceverse controversy (which has tens of sources in that respective article) can be combined to demonstrate notability, aside from the standard WP:CREATIVE argument. As for the Nigeria, please see this and this discussion from a few months ago. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
One of my most edited articles is on a Nigerian subject so I'm aware of the limitations with their media. Even then those articles are more about 15.ai than the engineer, the Guardian article is unclear on how it substantiated some of its claims, and the Independent article only has a paragraph on him, which is, to be fair, more than any of the other articles. They're not really good enough on their own even before the reliability issue. The discussions linked only have proposals on overhaul which no one agreed on.

The problem with the WP:BASIC argument is that the articles identified are all trivial. It doesn't mean being mentioned trivially a lot makes you eligible for an article because everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, especially when we're dealing with a living person. Meeting NCREATIVE does not necessarily imply a subject is notable enough for a page, either, especially in this situation where a) people don't universally agree that it applies and b) the main reason for it not applying would be due to a lack of GNG-quality sources. If you're making a WP:BASIC argument, to me that is an admission WP:GNG is not met.

We can agree to disagree, but to this day no one has identified a WP:GNG-qualifying source. The good news about the Nigerian articles is that they at least imply there might be other coverage out there that does qualify. I haven't been able to find it after a web search, and the single best way to insulate this page from merging/deletion and any other future user who looks at the page, says wow, there are a lot of primary sources and none of the sources actually talk about this engineer, let's take it to AfD, is to add better sources. I'll change to keep if they exist and can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per MEMES. As a person also with ADHD, I strongly, emphatically disagree with what some of the editors saying it's best to cover them together with 15.ai. For me and many others, It's definitely not. About one in four people in my generation have ADHD, so it's not some obscure illness that effects only a handful of people. About 13000 people read the 15 article per month, probably mostly younger people, which is about 3250 people per month that would be disadvantaged as a result of a merge. I concur 15 is notable and I strongly oppose merging to 15.ai. TokiPony (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
See WP:REDACT. You cannot simply delete an old post, you must strikethrough it. That plus placing this at the front of the list gives the incorrect impression you are new to the discussion.

In any event, Wikipedia has max article size guidelines which a merge would not overrun. If you think that long articles are inaccessible to those with ADHD or reading on mobile, that's something to suggest as a general policy change and this is the wrong forum to argue that case. I'm not sure why the 15.ai article in particular should randomly be an exception to the thousands of other very long articles out there. That is also making the assumption 15.ai cannot be trimmed down in any way without losing the information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:PAGEDECIDE says decisions should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable. Keeping 15's background and career together in a focused biography is precisely such a consideration. Being below WP:SIZERULE's thresholds does not automatically mean that merging would improve comprehension, as expressed by multiple people in this AfD. This is a completely appropriate location to express one's thoughts on the readability of an article as part of its merits as a standalone article. Digital folklorist 22:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and a major example of those considerations is listed as "What sourcing is available now?" This is the most important, since many have agreed the sourcing is very poor, especially that which speaks directly about 15 and not the site, and potentially not justifying a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with you. There is no need to continue this conversation. Digital folklorist 23:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, I think this comes down to the question if the subject passes WP:NBIO, which per WP:NCREATIVE, the subject does.

That said, it can be debated whether the subject is only notable for 15.ai, which would make this article become a BLP1E candidate. I think the subject is more notable than just that one project, albeit being the most notable of the subject's works so far.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Can you please point to what other project they're notable for? Literally every word in the "Other projects" section is sourced solely to their personal website and own X posts, no independent coverage of anything they've done besides 15.ai whatsoever, and this would fall under 1E. There are simply zero independent sources about this anonymous person that say anything about them beyond the development of 15.ai. NBIO/NCREATIVE does not mean that the requirement for reliable independent coverage may be disregarded altogether. — Reywas92^Talk 19:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

no independent coverage of anything they've done besides 15.ai whatsoever This concept of "independent coverage" is not based on policy whatsoever and is being used to conveniently exclude all the sources being used in Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal. Clearly not BLP1E. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "sources independent of the subject" - which is what is meant by independent coverage here - is one of the most important policy pillars of our concept of notability. See 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. SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not disputing WP:INDEPENDENT. My objection was to the qualification besides 15.ai, which is what they mean by "independent coverage" (i.e. independent of 15.ai). Excluding sources in this way is not based on any policy whatsoever. Source independence and coverage of activities beyond someone's principal work are entirely separate questions. Reporting on 15's role in Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal does not lose its independence just because the controversy involved 15.ai. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any sources are being excluded. I am sure the point of that sentence is just that no secondary sources have been identified which cover any of their other projects outside the scope of the company. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

All independent coverage has been in relation to 15.ai. There is no independent coverage of anything else 15 has done, so a standalone article – particularly one fluffed up so much by things that haven't been covered by reliable independent sources – is not justified. — Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Except that SportingFlyer has placed an actual source analysis above, and no one else has. There isn't independent secondary coverage of anything else 15 has done. Is there? In what sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Do not reply to my comments. You crossed the line two years ago by enabling BrocadeRiverPoems to harass me for years, the fallout of which I'm still having to deal with even in this very AfD, to the point where I had to get admins involved to help curb the constant harassment. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC) Striking self because this isn't relevant to the AfD Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. Diffs please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the GNG that the significant coverage of a subject needs to be the sole focus of the sources. Reading the footnotes helps! Katzrockso (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

No one is making that argument. The issue is there is no significant coverage at all, see the source analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 07:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sources with significant coverage have been presented. You arbitrarily decided that they don't count. Digital folklorist 07:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Which sources? SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep separate Per the DRV discussion: merge arguments are simply not compelling, both source and target have been separately assessed as GA quality. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
GA assessments have nothing whatsoever to do with whether an article ought to be merged, better explained in WP:GACN#Beyond the scope. Both notability and merging are outside Good Article criteria, so if that's the reason that the merge argument isn't compelling, you may want to reassess that reasoning. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
You may sincerely believe GA status is irrelevant, but I do not. Any GA has been assessed and found to be useful as an article, representing a decent presentation of the topic. Notability is not reuqired for standalone articles: it remains a guideline that is generally complied with, not a policy that is non-negotiable, so a local consensus choosing to keep an article standalone despite questions about notability, especially in light of previous GA assessment, is not unsupportable. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The policy gymnastics that are going on in this AfD are incredible. I have never in thousands of AfDs seen an argument that notability is not required: WP:N's fourth sentence is Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Must is a very strong word! Furthermore, GA reviews can be wrong and have nothing to do with notability.

The simplest thing to do to push back against those of us who are seriously concerned about the complete lack of reliable sourcing for an article about a living person would be to provide additional sources. I also think the fact this is a mixed merge/AfD isn't helping anything as people are talking past each other - if this were "just" a merge discussion, I would agree with you that good article status would be an argument against merging, but instead it's turned into an AfD where there is a crystal clear redirect/merge target. SportingFlyer T·C 09:46, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
9 of the voters here have less than a year of experience and/or fewer than 1000 edits, several of which appear to have some sort of interest in the subject. I considered adding the SPA tag to a few of them with much less. A GA review is done by a single person and cannot possibly be constituted as a "supervote" that we must defer to without further critical assessment of the sources and content. GAs are merged and even deleted on a regular basis, and this GA review was not particularly thorough. — Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
several of which appear to have some sort of interest in the subject It's almost as though a notice was placed on the respective WikiProject talk pages... No, that couldn't be it. It must be those gosh darn new accounts made by a group of those so-called "young people" who weren't even alive when I joined Wikipedia! Digital folklorist 16:06, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. According to Wikipedia's notability guideline, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article. The developer satisfies the third bullet point of the SNG for creative professionals. As argued by others, having the developer's information in a separated biography page helps the readers understand the topic better. This lets you have better readability and organization because it lets the 15.ai page focus on the research project without requiring the reader to read between the lines for information on the developer. Ipso facto, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the developer should have his own article separate from his work. Tacotron2 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Defunct (video game)

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

Appears insufficiently notable. Could not find a reviews from reliable sources. IgelRM (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. IgelRM (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete While it got a large amount of reviews, none seem like they are from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:28, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete I can find a purely descriptive GameStar release article and a partially available MAN!AC review that seems like it may be cut off . Together with the Digitally Downloaded source, I'd say this floats towards a faint whiff of notability, but I would say Digitally Downloaded is the only source with great depth here. VRXCES (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per reviews 1, 2, and 3. Metacritic said it meets multiple reviwes. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 17:40, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
These sources are not what we consider meet the standard of reliable sources per WP:VG/S. Switch Player is inconclusive, and Bago and Steemit are unassessed. Steemit particularly looks like a user-generated blog. VRXCES (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Unassessed doesn't mean unreliable. Here are another two: 4, 5.

We just need two reviews only. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:59, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
And unassessed sure doesn't mean reliable either. The test for WP:GNG is anchored on coverage from reliable sources and we look for sources with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Finding these kind of sources is not helpful in this exercise unless you are advocating that one or more of these are reliable. Otherwise, this coverage obviously exists, but has no bearing on notability. VRXCES (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Metacritic should not define what is notable and ideally it should not be difficult to find significant coverage in reliable sources. IgelRM (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - XGN seems fairly reliable. Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf republishes their reviews: . Cited by Algemeen Dagblad: , . Some of their writers have written for IGN: , , , . Combined with GameStar, Digitally Downloaded and Maniac reviews, it's enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
XGN seems like your standard WP:BLOG and GameStar isn't a review, just a WP:MILL news article. I would still disagree this shows GNG is passed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the starting point for sites like these is nominal unreliability rather than dismissing it entirely as a WP:BLOG which it does not seem to be. Whether being syndicated to a tabloid that may or may not be reliable in itself isn't a strong indicator of notability, but having experienced writers is encouraging, noting the author is not one of them. What frustrates me is the site does not publish editorial policies and the masthead has hobbyist-type bios () that don't identify an editorial structure. VRXCES (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Source 7 and 9 are reliable sources. @Vrxces now it's established that multiple reliable reviews found to meet GNG. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 13:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Citations [7] and [9] are being used as examples of experience of later writers for XGN on other RS. It's useful for Mika1h to have found that, but I get the sense that you've misinterpreted those IGN sources as being about this game. VRXCES (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There XGN writers have written for the Dutch IGN franchise, not the English one, for clarity. IgelRM (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep it, as being sourced by allegedly insufficiently known sources, doesn't mean there's reason for deletion – The article can be readily expanded and can thus stay, as it has a good base and is a good foundation for a overwork. The nomination seems also rather arbitrary, to be honest … Smartcom5 ^(Talk?) 14:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
The nomination took place when there was only one reliable review identified. Sources need to establish WP:GNG is met, and if an editor views there are not enough reliable sources to substantiate the subject matter, that is very much a fair reason for deletion, whether ultimately correct or not. VRXCES (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, the atmosphere can feel so rough here. IgelRM (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Pie in the Sky (game engine)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the majority of the article is either primary sourced or simply talking about the games made with the engine (WP:NOTINHERITED). Back when it was first created, sources were unreliable or irrelevant, and this hasn't really changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep – Seems to meet WP:GNG: A few paragraphs here in a magazine, a few chapters in a game-making book (apparently several editions and publishers from author Luke Ahearn that include significant content about this software), and a few more passing mentions in trade mags of the time that I didn't look through carefully. Article should be reduced to a stub; I see very little worth keeping in the current article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Good find. I note these sources seem to call it the Game Creation System? Is it that the engine's called the same thing as the company, but the tool to create games using the engine is called the Game Creation System? That's a little confusing. VRXCES (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

A game-making book is quite far from WP:GNG. IgelRM (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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 keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

W.D. Gaster

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

I propose merging to List of Undertale and Deltarune characters because in my opinion W.D. Gaster is not notable enough to warrant an article. His current article relies heavily on speculation (with even the image "representing" him having no source to back up that claim), and several of the article's sources credit their content to fan theories which remain unattributed. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related AfD discussions. GarethBaloney (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
keep. speculation and the coverage thereof isn't mutually exclusive with notability. the image is also shown in a few of the sources, also with the same caveat of "that only might be gaster", so it's not a problem either consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. The article is well written and most of the theorizing is framed as "writer X says this". I do see some content mills in the source list; those should be removed. SenshiSun (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Gaster has an outsized impact on popular culture compared to other characters from Undertale/Deltarune, and the sources that focus solely on the mystery of Gaster are evidence of this. He's also a touchstone example of mystery crafting in the modern era of games, where all of a game's secrets can be datamined within days of a game's release. Dudeman4297 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep Not as much of a home run keep as it looks. Notability discussions tend to focus on in-depth commentary on the character as the anchor for them and admittedly many sources are used here that aren't that in-depth or really engage with the character, given the "character" is less significant than indirect references to them. I appreciate the nominator's concern that a lot of the reception coverage is speculative, but speculative or thematic concepts can still sometimes meet notability. Taking sources like Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun and the WaPo, there's narrowly enough to defend an article describing the character's relationship to the game's design, metanarrative, and player response in a way that isn't better served in a list or the parent article. VRXCES (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Gaster is heavily analyzed even if the character has not had much confirmed content in-game as of now. There are also further reliable sources covering the character that are not included as of yet, most notably Mitchell, Liam (2018) Ludopolitics (ISBN 9781785354892) published by Zer0 Books. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 20:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Well sourced article. Notability is established with sources. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:40, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I firmly disagree that merging this well-sourced article benefits Wikipedia or its readers. Gaster clears WP:GNG easily and there's plenty sourced content that would have to be thrown away if we merge this article. I FREAKING LOVE MEMES (talk) 23:14, 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.

Paradise Café (video game)

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

No significant coverage can be found in reliable published sources. Stooob (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Portugal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 16:19, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:GNG per Encyclopedia of Video Games, Video Games Around the World, and Publico (Público (Portugal)). Also I won't link to the copy I found, but there's a segment in Videojogos em Portugal: História, Tecnologia e Arte [pt]. That's enough, but that this is widely described as the most famous Portuguese video game ever or at least of the 1980s suggests that contemporary coverage also almost certainly exists. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:44, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you provide any actual quotes from these sources that show "significant coverage" rather than simply confirming it existed. Books which are simply lists of games are "trivial mentions" so not WP:GNG. You can't make an article from a title, release year and author. Stooob (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Here's a machine translated excerpt from Videojogos em Portugal: Paradise Café rapidly became the most famous game ever produced in Portugal. Few people who owned a ZX Spectrum in Portugal during the 1980s would be unfamiliar with the game; even those who didn't own one—provided they were teenagers at the time—almost certainly heard of it. Despite numerous attempts over the decades by specialized magazines and, more recently, retro-gaming websites to identify the creator, the author never stepped forward. Consequently, we know him only by his pseudonym: Damatta. An analysis of the game's content makes it easy to understand why the author has remained anonymous. *Paradise Café* did not gain fame solely for its adult themes—and certainly not for the abysmal quality of its gameplay. Instead, a key factor in its success was its basis in the so-called "Reinaldo" rumor, a hot topic of conversation in cafés across the country. The urban legend held that in 1984, a soccer player named Reinaldo had sent a female singer from a Portuguese pop group to the hospital following a sexual encounter. Incorporating these elements gave the game a direct link to the social climate of the time, sparking intense word-of-mouth buzz. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The "Reinaldo" rumour dates from October 1981 (https://www.dn.pt/arquivo/diario-de-noticias/prova-de-vida---laura-diogo-16699179.html). Years before the release of the game so it wouldn't have been "a hot topic of conversation". Considering the rumour was so famous in Portugal they made a film, Bem Bom, and a TV series about it, yet Videojogos em Portugal gets the most basic fact about it wrong it's not a "reliable source". Stooob (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep great finds A412 it's apparently one of the most influential video games out of Portugal Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Apparently one of the most influential, yet not single source exists to show anything or anybody influenced by it? Stooob (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per A412. Madeleine (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete While it got mentions in WP:RS, they are extremely trivial and lack any sort of substantive content like previews/reviews that might allow an article to possibly be fleshed out. I am disappointed they were trotted out without any form of caveat about their very short length. I would need to see examples of contemporaneous coverage of note to be convinced, but right now there are just guesses that it may exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete I'm sorry, but no amount of retrospective coverage stating "it's influential" can cure the fact that no source has actually described what the game is or how it plays. A gameplay section entirely sourced from a citation that says I'm not going to explain the game mechanics, because they're certainly common knowledge is not meeting the bar. That sources cannot substantiate the most basic details about a game suggests a WP:GNG failure. VRXCES (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
While gameplay doesn't necessarily need a source, I don't see how the sources pass WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to List of video games developed in Portugal, although a prose article would be better. IgelRM (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge over Deletion: Per WP:ATD. If deletion is preferred, then I recommend we instead merge the article with List of erotic video games. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
For me that's the only situation I would favor should it get deleted RandomMe98 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with that merge as an outcome. VRXCES (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per A412. The provided sources are enough for GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep per A412. The sources show that the subject is notable. I FREAKING LOVE MEMES (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. While it is conventional for a video game article to describe its gameplay, that isn't a prerequisite to having an article. There is substance in the sources, and the sources are good ones. As such the material is encyclopedic, and I see no obvious merge target, and so I default to keep, even if the article will remain short. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

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 delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Art pipeline

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

An article like personal essay, with information easily more suitable for video games articles, and with almost no sources. The term art pipeline itself seems a very technical description, without the necessity to have an article for this here. Chiserc (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Video games. Chiserc (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I've rescued the malformed reference in this article. I'm not sure how I feel about this as an article - this is a somewhat commonly used term in professional video game development, but the details of how that "pipeline" works are fairly company-specific, so I don't know how much could be said that's generally applicable. Omphalographer (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

TNT delete Topic MIGHT be notable, but the article itself is not salvageable in its current state and fails WP:OR for the most part. It would almost certainly need a full rewrite even if it were an article-worthy topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT - possibly notable topic, but this is a poorly written and poorly sourced essay. I feel sad for everyone who has worked on this. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Stubify per TNT on account of these sources I was able to find that substantiate notability:
- This one's arguable
- This source wouldn't collapse as a link for some reason: vcad.ca/about/spotlights/the-game-development-pipeline-a-beginner-s-guide-to-how-games-are-made/
I've found nothing (except this Adobe source) specifically discussing the "art" pipeline because it seems as though the term is more generally used for the particular creative endeavor the individual / team is involved in. Think this is a case where notability has to be established via the tiniest sliver of SYNTH (depending on how you look at the Adobe source), but not enough that it actually breaks SYNTH. Otherwise the topic is notable but possibly under another name.

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Proposal: Perhaps we Stubify and Move to Art production pipeline?

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I think moving it to Art production pipeline makes sense if that's the more accurate term for what's actually covered by the sources. That is, as long as the sources are enough to justify an article on this topic, since the Adobe source appears to focus on one game's pipeline. Is there enough coverage of art production pipelines in general? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT above. Regardless of whether this topic is notable, I lean deleting and starting over due to the lack of inline citations and suitable refs. Madeleine (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Content concerns should not be used as grounds for deletion per WP:CONTN

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Well, right now I am not really convinced by the sources brought forth that the article subject is standalone notable. It's also too vague to properly redirect somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I think we’re being a bit too demanding asking that the exact term strictly be the topic of discussion in the sourcing. That seems like it’s sticking more to the letter of WP:SYNTH than its actual spirit, given that the guideline itself indicates that sometimes a bit of synthesis, even a fairly sizeable amount of synthesis is necessary in certain cases, of which I think this is one.

CSGinger14 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Fails WP:Verifiability as is, so Delete. IgelRM (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The WP:TNT can't happen fast enough. Every section except for the lead is completely unsourced. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 16:22, 30 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.

Logical Design Works

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

Company fails GNG outside of notability inherited from games. Not sure which game to redirect to. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Poland, and California. Go D. Usopp (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete: I wasn't able to find any other sources myself, although it's certainly possible there are some Polish language ones I missed. The reference from Pixel already in the article seems like it could be significant and reliable, although I had to rely on a translator to evaluate it. However, I don't think one good source is enough for WP:NCORP. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - There's significant coverage about their subsidiary Karen: article in Culture.pl: (author has written for Przekrój, Pixel), article in Top Secret (magazine): (page 4), news story in pl:Computerworld: . --Mika1h (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I thought Karen was a different company made by Lucjan Wencel? Either way, if that is the notable topic, maybe there should be an article on Karen with LDW redirecting to it. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I've looked at the sources mentioned already, none meet the criteria and having carried out my own searches, I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep subject has coverage in two books Encyclopedia of Video Games & Video Games Around the World and has published several games that have meet WP:NPRODUCT. While the is no assumed notability, odds are with the sources I found, and non-English language sources found by Mika1h (talk · contribs), that should meet WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment The company isn't mentioned in the first book. The second book contains a passing reference. Neither meets the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You've pointed to NPRODUCT but this topic is about a company, not a product, notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I might support this if the article topic is changed to Lucjan Wencel as an individual NCREATIVE. IgelRM (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Also have we looked at what is on Polish Wikipedia? That article is much more extensive and has reliable sources that can be used to verify the English Wikipedia article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

They use different criteria, we look for sources that meet WP:NCORP criteria (a specific implementation of GNG for companies with examples) which goes well beyond mere WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Move and change the article to Lucjan Wencel (alternatively Lucjan D. Wencel or Lucjan Daniel Wencel, sources use all of these, so no preference) per IgelRM and the sources provided in this discussion. From what I can tell, both of the books RightCowLeftCoast shared mention only California Dreams, not LDW, and Mika1h provided sources that describes Karen. Meanwhile, Lucjan is the founder of all three companies~~; the sources seem like more than enough to prove his notability~~. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Founding different companies alone is not sufficient notability. I was think if Wencel was the main developer of notable games, but does not appear to be the case. So Delete as is. IgelRM (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@IgelRM: hm, I thought he was the developer of the tetris clone Blockout, but it looks like even though it was developed by Wencel's company someone else did it. We also have articles for Street Rod, Tunnels of Armageddon, and Solidarność, but the sourcing on all of those is scant at best. Since this is the discussion on LDW anyway, I'll go back to my original recommendation of delete. ExitTheWarrior (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Video games-related deletions

List of libraries owned by Skydance

Mudkip

15 (software engineer)

Defunct (video game)

Pie in the Sky (game engine)

W.D. Gaster

Paradise Café (video game)

Art pipeline

Logical Design Works

Proposed deletions

Redirects