Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Engineering. 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|Engineering|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 Engineering. 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 May 2019) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Engineering

Condition (SQL)

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

I propose merging to SQL syntax because of substantial WP:OVERLAP with SQL syntax and the various SQL keyword pages. I'm not even sure there's any unique content here worth preserving, so it might be better to just delete. Reasoncraft (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. Reasoncraft (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

C. Wyatt Shields IV

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

Associate ~~assistant~~ professor who has made a very good start to their career, but as yet does not pass WP:NSCHOLAR; h-factor of 32 with 5K in a fairly high citation area. No SIGCOV, and while it might have passed AfC in 2022 it should not in 2026. Note that having an endowed junior chair does not qualify. Probably will pass in 3 years, it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Chemistry, Engineering, and Colorado. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:NPROF. I'll note that the page subject is now an associate professor, not assistant, but that does not change the fact that the nomination is correct about this being WP:TOOSOON. His awards are typical of a young investigator, not someone with a fully developed career, and his most recent large research grant, , is from within his own institution. (I'll also note that the page has had an extensive history of being edited by the page subject, although this does not reflect on notability.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello: I am the page subject. This page was created by a former PhD student (now graduate) of mine as a kind gesture without my knowledge or input. After it was shown to me, I observed the page contained promotional content, so I edited it to make the page plain (non-promotional). That said, if this page is not appropriate for Wikipedia due to career level being insufficient or if it still contains promotional language, I also support deleting it. ~2026-57385-71 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. The page also should be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep but only per WP:PROF#C1 and his high and increasing record of citations, including some first-author papers. As above, he definitely does not pass #C5 for an endowed assistant/associate professorship, and I don't think any of the awards listed at count for #C2. There has been some promotional editing but Ldm1954 and Tryptofish appear to have that in hand. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Just replying, not intended as badgering, but I think that in his field, senior authorship is indicated by being the last author, not first. I was just looking at his publications, and he does have some recent papers in Nature. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Just to confirm, yes, the senior authors go at the end; his better cited papers are from his PhD & postdocs. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. But "senior author" and "primary author" are two different things. (I work in a field where authors are alphabetical so I'm not very sensitive to these distinctions, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
To clarify, here "Senior" supervises and raises the funds. The last author is typically the one who would get blamed. The first are those who do the labor, often in decreasing involvement. (Sometimes there are equal contributions and this is marked.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC C2. The 2022 David and Lucile Packard Foundation is prestigious enough to meet that level in my mind.That one only selects about 20 recipients annually and is quite the large foundation. I think it could also fit for C1, although the concerns about disciplinary citation rates and independt research are reasonable. I agree that C5 does not apply and the article needs help, but that does not negate notability under C2. ~2026-57510-56 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-57510-56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This may also be the page subject, or someone closely connected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have no relation or COI with the topic. Thank you for checking though. ~2026-57510-56 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Given that you have not edited anywhere else, this claim is not very believable. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Are you new to anon-accounts and how they work? ~2026-57510-56 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This early career professor does not meet WP:NPROF. I agree with the nominator that this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. He's received several awards typical of an accomplished early career prof, but not reaching the level demanded by WP:NPROF. An NSF CAREER award etc. The h-index of 32 is impressive, although in a high-citation field, and is not usable on its own. Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. He does have one paper with 1392(!) citations, but that still does not meet WP:NPROF#C1. either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.Seems like a nice guy though, and probably will meet notability guidelines eventually.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:23, 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)
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)

Tony Thompson (politician)

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

Doesn't currently meet WP:NPOL or WP:ACADEMIC, though if he wins the election a week next Tuesday, he'd become notable. The links to his businesses cited as sources don't mention him, and the newspaper interview is a primary source. Online search only turns up run-of-the-mill coverage for him running in a US state senate election. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, Environment, and Iowa. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Potential POV and COI editing. Article was created by editor who could be the subject based on the username (411.tony) single purpose editor and portrait uploaded as "own work." Article title also refers to him in a polti-promospeak way: "Iowan" as opposed to "politician" or "American politician." AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no significant coverage. I agree he'd be notable if he wins, but before the election it's WP:TOOSOON. It is worth noting there is a former sheriff from Iowa named Tony Thompson who shows up in news search results, but he's an unrelated person. Tymewalk (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to 2026 Iowa Senate election#District 23. The improper disambiguation has been fixed. The article does not pass WP:NPOL. Aneirinn (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. That way, if he does win, next week, it's easy to re-create the article. Bearian (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, thanks. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Pragmatic relist until after the election. If he wins, he's notable. If he doesn't, redirect.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

Engineering

Condition (SQL)

C. Wyatt Shields IV

15 (software engineer)

Tony Thompson (politician)

Engineering Redirects for Discussion

Engineering proposed deletions