This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Internet. 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|Internet|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.
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 Internet. 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 September 2007) may be found at:
I propose merging into Fan edit because they cover mostly the same topic and the term Fan Edit appears as an "also known as" in the first sentence of the page for "fancam" which could cause confusion. CaptainPhineas (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is confined to domain-industry trade outlets and funding briefs not independent in-depth coverage of the company. The 2025 discussion closed as keep on three !votes: two from sockpuppets of the paid-editing farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy, and one from the page's creator, who disclosed that in the discussion. Kqol•talk 23:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sourcing appears to rely heavily on funding announcements, partnership announcements, acquisition coverage and company-related business news. These establish nesto's commercial activity and growth, but do not necessarily demonstrate significant independent coverage of the company itself, as required by WP:NCORP. Much of the article also reads as a chronological account of corporate developments rather than an indication of independent notability. ~~~~
People could not agree whether AACS encryption key controversy should be merged. However, in the AfD for that article, there was a good suggestion to merge this page and that one. I would agree that this is even more obviously an WP:OVERLAP to the controversy page than that page is to the encryption method. The Free Speech Flag is intrinsically related to the "09 F9" movement and was spread purely in response to it. Based on WP:MERGECON and WP:OVERLAP, as well as the short length of the target page and the fact that a large chunk of this page reiterates the content of the controversy page, it would be more helpful for readers if this was merged into it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nominator's rationale. I was the one who suggested said merge on the original AfD page for the 09 F9 movement, and the Free Speech Flag article is pretty short, see WP:OVERLAP and WP:SHORTTEXT for what I'm talking about. ScopeOfThe360 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
I believe that this page should be merged with 15.ai for several reasons:
WP:SHORTTEXT - with the information about the website 15.ai and the plagiarism controversy, which is already explained on the company's page, removed, the text of the article is extremely short. Due to the engineer's anonymity, it is unclear if it will get larger anytime soon.
WP:OVERLAP/WP:MERGECON - The software engineer is mostly known for creating the AI model/website 15.ai. As can be seen with the large amount of explanatory text, it is best talked about in the context of the AI model that he created, where it would not require a redundant explainer.
(Possibly) WP:MERGENOT - In the first AfD discussion, which closed as no consensus, it was argued that 15 passed WP:NCREATIVE due to his creation of 15.ai. However, while he is a creative professional, it is unclear if the site or underlying model is a creative work. It was designed purely as a tool to create synthesized voices rather than for artistic purposes. This would be akin to calling Microsoft Office or VLC Media Player a "creative work". The site was notable for its function, rather than its form.
It has been more than 2 months since the only true AfD on the subject, per WP:RENOM, while the more recent one was immediately procedurally closed and I assume it doesn't count towards that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I've already repeated my arguments multiple times, so I'm just going to copy paste my previous edits:
WP:SOFT explicitly states Computer programs are creative works. What we're discussing is the software that 15 designed and developed, so the AI is not doing the creating. Its ability to generate speech does not negate his authorship of the software itself.
WP:GNG stipulates that addresses the topic directly and in detail, and indeed, there are multiple sources that discuss his research, startup career, his educational background, etc. Those are biographical. If we decide to arbitrarily set aside the sections about what he's best known for, then of course that would remove much of the career coverage on which notability rests. That's an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of WP:NOPAGE that many other biographies would certainly fail to qualify for notability under.
(I'm well-aware of WP:WHATABOUT; I'm simply pointing out that this line of thinking implies that, for example, Satoshi Nakamoto would fail to qualify for his own article because every single biography about him hinges on his work on Bitcoin. Imagine if we said "Satoshi Nakamoto isn't notable because if we remove all the information from his article relevant to Bitcoin, then we'd have very little personal information about him, so we should merge his article to Bitcoin instead"?)
Just because there is minimal private-life information, it does not invalidate the existence of such coverage. Excising biographical and career information like this and reducing the "substantive content" into a single paragraph is not grounded on any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of.
Even if we disregard WP:SOFT, that seems like a rather arbitrary argument. The implication that a creator of a very well-known work fails to meet WP:CREATOR just because it involves creating it on a computer is a very strange line to draw. What about a video game? Is the article for the creator of Doki Doki Literature Club, Dan Salvato (which I see you've actually promoted into mainspace), not contrary to your argument? If we apply the exact same standards you're suggesting, Salvato also has a single paragraph to establish his notability. Why shouldn't we merge this article into Doki Doki Literature Club, in that case? Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, even if we are to disregard WP:SOFT as not being official policy, where in WP:CREATOR does it stipulate that the work created must be a creative work? Criterion #3 says: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or. Nowhere does it require that the work must be strictly considered a "creative work". The guideline says This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals., which per the nominator (while he is a creative professional), applies to 15. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. My reading of WP:NCREATOR, is that the person must be a creative professional, without an additional requirement that their qualifying work have an artistic purpose. A quick search shows that the precedent has been applied to chess engines (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hyatt), file transfer protocols (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Forsberg), and news server software (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Salz). All three discussions closed as keep/nominator withdrawal upon the invocation of WP:NCREATOR. I therefore do not see a basis for categorically excluding 15.ai from criterion 3 merely because it is a functional tool. Madeleine(talk) 18:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The policy clearly says "work" and gives works of media as examples. It is a big stretch to interpret that as a purely functional program. Interpreting WP:NCREATIVE to also include inventors and engineers is not something it was designed to encompass, and saying that they merely had to have created something at some point unrelated to what they were known for is following the letter and not the spirit of the policy.
Certainly you can point to other discussions where this was not upheld, but WP:CCC means there is no "judicial precedent" on Wikipedia.
Anyway, that is only one of my arguments and probably the one I am least certain of. Even if we assume he is notable, the page is slim. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:23, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
The page being slim is insufficient. Robert Hyatt is even shorter and there is very little chance that article will be expanded. Madeleine(talk) 19:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep For one, they're both GAs. For two, 15.ai got 90k views this month, and 15 got 12k views. If 12,000 people a month want to look at something, that strongly speaks against merging. 15.ai has obvious standalone notability. 15 also has standalone notability, what with the Guardian article and other coverage. I'm not sure why we're arguing about NCREATIVE when the GNG is met. They're also still making new projects that keep getting coverage. 15.ai is already a pretty long article; merging in 15 would not be a good use of space. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:06, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see what supports for a Good Topic have to do with endorsing a merge or not. There's no proof whey went over and analyzed the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I've already posted talk page messages to everyone who participated in the discussion (per WP:APPNOTE, of course), but I'll give them a courtesy ping if they'd like to briefly chime in. @NRP @JisharaSilvers Rayleigh (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep as GA reviewer. I think GNG is met, NCREATIVE is definitely met, standalone notability has been shown by both articles, and 15 is definitely creating new stuff. Neither article is short - 15 is around 900 words, and 15.ai is 4800. As such I don't see there being any valid reason to merge. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep 15 pretty easily meets GNG and warrants a standalone article. NRP (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per GA reviewer and nominator. Not only is WP:NCREATIVE met, but its also a good article which means it should never be nominated for deletion/merge. All GAs are notable and should never be nominated for deletion or merge because a GA should be broad enough and 730 words is quite long for a normal article (already double the median of 350), but just about enough for GA. Not to mention its also nominated for good topic which makes it even more better. JuniperChill (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I'll admit I'm not a fan of the back-to-back use of primary sources for 15's other projects, but he meets standalone creator/creative notability criteria in general. The text of quite a few smaller, academic-backed articles about BLPs tend to be "this person did a thing, here's their research, and here's secondary analysis of this research". Silvers Rayleigh is quite good at this specifically, but that academic backing could be done a little better here. travismulch 19:24, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 October 17 following a previous non-admin close of "snow keep" after 29.5 hours. An admin need not necessarily wait another seven days before closing; see WP:RELIST. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: The article was updated since the DRV closed with more information that could not possibly be merged to the target. I disagree with the reopening of this AfD. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. As I explained at the DRV:
WP:SHORTTEXT was answered with word counts and a shorter comparable biography.
WP:OVERLAP was answered with biographical coverage and other projects beyond 15.ai, alongside concerns about expanding the already substantial target article.
WP:NCREATOR objection was answered with the specific wording of criterion 3.
These were substantive arguments against merging. I remain unconvinced by the claim that participants were answering a strawman or had failed to consider the proposed merger.
Since then, the article has been expanded further with additional information about 15's fandom activity and personal information, which is biographical material about his activities beyond 15.ai and would have no place to be merged into that article, going against the recommendations of WP:MERGE. Digitalfolklorist 05:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
The expansion does not appear to utilize any sort of WP:RS? I am not sure it's actually admissible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Literally everything that was added in the expansion is admissible due to WP:SELFSOURCE, as Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD: Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Self published statements and information do not back up the idea that this person is well-known in the public eye for more things than creating 15.ai, which is the gist of my point on why it should be merged as an overlapping concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm completely lost on what your argument is. Not only was your nomination extremely poorly argued to begin with, but now you're trying to convince people that WP:SELFSOURCE no longer applies because... of WP:OVERLAP somehow?? I've reached my limit of frustration at this point by this nonsense and this whole dragging out every single available bureaucratic avenue just to block the Good Topic nomination, so please don't respond to me anymore. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:SELFSOURCE has nothing to do with notability. You can't make yourself notable. It's fine for information used in an already notable article, but since there are no reliable sources currently identified that actually demonstrate this person is independently notable of the company, you can't base a stand-alone article on WP:SELFSOURCE. Otherwise then we'd all be notable. SportingFlyerT·C 10:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I never said anything about WP:SELFSOURCE establishing notability. My notability argument rests on WP:NCREATIVE; SELFSOURCE was cited to address the sourcing of additional biographical details within its stated limits. That's a completely separate question from establishing notability. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
'Independent notability' is not a concept used anywhere in policy, despite many editors trying to employ it as a concept. Katzrockso (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Digital folklorist. Moreover, the DRV discussion established that the subject is notable, but was split on whether the subject should have its own standalone article due to WP:MERGEREASON. However, the article has since been updated with more information directly pertaining to the personal life of the subject that cannot be cleanly merged into the 15.ai article. Ergo, the article must be kept, as the alternative would be to arbitrarily throw away interesting, relevant information about the subject. Shanky94 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As said above, I disagree with the claim that because more information was added, it cannot be merged. If the information is not from WP:RS, it would potentially violate various rules, including WP:REPUTABLE and WP:GACR6. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge I asked for this to be re-opened because having reviewed it during the DRV, I am absolutely convinced this is not eligible to be a stand-alone page. First, this is a WP:BLP who does not meet WP:GNG. While WP:NCREATIVE might technically be met, there is not enough reliable, secondary information about them in the sources provided in the article. The only good articles oddly are from the Guardian Nigeria and the Independent Nigeria which need to be viewed with caution per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. All of the other sources in the article are about the org, not about the person, further meaning WP:OVERLAP applies. Wikipedia policy essentially requires this to be merged. Being expanded further hasn't uncovered reliable secondary sources. Everyone has asserted WP:GNG is met, but the sources in the article are similar to (doesn't mention them at all), (doesn't mention them at all), #2 doesn't mention them at all, Towards Data Science doesn't mention them at all... This is a self-published blog which cites Wikipedia and says this person is very reclusive... There is just nothing here which suggests they are eligible for an article under WP:BLP per our actual policies. SportingFlyerT·C 09:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy essentially requires this to be merged.WP:OVERLAP is neither policy, nor does it mandate a merger. The same exact page's WP:NOMERGE advice cautions against merging where the result would be too long or clunky, or where the separate topics could be expanded into standalone articles. Other participants have raised that exact issue here. WP:N permits presumed notability through either GNG or an SNG, and since WP:NCREATIVE is met, the GNG point is moot. Reviews focusing on 15.ai do not, by themselves, disqualify its creator from a standalone article, and a proposed merger still needs to be justified under WP:NOPAGE. Here, a separate biography is helpful to readers: it presents his education, career, projects, and personal life separate from 15.ai as a coherent account, while keeping 15.ai focused on the software itself. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
since WP:NCREATIVE is met, the GNG point is moot That's not how this works: NCREATIVE implies WP:BASIC has been met, which... it just hasn't here. See WP:BIOSPECIAL. NCREATIVE also requires WP:BLP to be met, which it isn't due to a complete lack of viable secondary sourcing. If you take out every single primary source from the article, there is nothing left about the subject in the article.
I know I'm arguing against a big consensus here, but if this article were at AfC I would have confidently failed it due to lack of sourcing. SportingFlyerT·C 13:38, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Per WP:SNG: Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Adequate sourcing has not been demonstrated for this article. SportingFlyerT·C 15:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict what Jishara said. Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
There is a difference. WP:GNG "presumes" notability. WP:NCREATIVE says "likely" notable. The reason it says "likely" notable is because it still needs to be properly sourced, per WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic.
There is currently not a single reliable secondary source identified covering this engineer. As noted the best two are not reliable due to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. SportingFlyerT·C 08:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
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. SportingFlyerT·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 merge15.ai article is a GA at 116,264 bytes and is about the application, while 15 (software engineer) is about the person who created the application, but also talks about many things with no direct relation to the 15.ai article. Things are clearly better organized the way they are now, and it would be very strange to deny this GA article the right of existing. P.S. Just to mention another article, about something different, but the analogy is clear: Lean (proof assistant) was created by Leonardo de Moura, and we keep the articles separate, as it should be. Let's not waste editors' time and energy on this discussion, as it could be way better used elsewhere. MathKeduor7 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge. I agree with the nomination and with Skyshifter's reasoning, there really isn't anything about this article that users arent better served reading about at 15.ai and randon additions like their chess ELO or CSGO rank or the fact that they have aphantasia is just trivial facts about a person who is popular within a niche fandom. All of the highest quality sources are discussing different topics such as the 15.ai website or the nft controversy while picking some tidbits about the mostly anonymous creator out of those articles is okay there really isn't anything substantial there about the subject and the other sources are mostly primary sources which is fine for some things I guess but if an article is going to say in wikivoice that someone has three degrees from a prestigious university that feels like something that needs more than just trust me bro from the subject thenselves lol. Chrhns (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE; note that I am striking this after the discussion was reslisted by DRV. Toadspike[Talk] 00:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
A note to anyone reading this: this is a sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems / Ibnqirtaiba, with the exact same MO of making multiple accounts just so they can try to get the 15.ai-related articles deleted. I knew this would happen the moment the AfD got reopened. They have a very, very, long history of trying to get these articles deleted and/or merged, and I urge you to read the whole SPI to see how they've been harassing and hounding me wherever I edit on Wikipedia. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge - per SportingFlyer. This is a WP:PAGEDECIDE decision. That requires us to look beyond whether the information is kept or not. All !votes here are for keeping in some form. The question is where the information is best placed. On the sourcing available, I think that should be on the merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:PAGEDECIDE implies that the topic is notable. The problem here is that this particular person has not been shown to be notable. Merely meeting an SNG/NCREATIVE isn't enough if there is no reliable secondary coverage at all. SportingFlyerT·C 23:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
True. There are people here claiming it meets GNG. I don't see it, but a closer is likely to look at this and see a disagreement on that point. But my point is that even if there is no consensus on the notability, PAGEDECIDE matters in merge and needs to be addressed. To be clear, however, my "per SportingFlyer" constitutes my agreement that they are not independently notable, and GNG/ANYBIO is not met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. That's now three merge supporters, including the nominator, who are describing 15.ai as a company, even though its opening sentence, identifies it as a free, non-commercial web application and research project. That basic factual error is concerning, and the stricken sockpuppet merge !vote already adds to my unease about this discussion. I'm concerned that this AfD is becoming DRV Part II of the broader WP:NOPAGE disagreement at the DRVs 15 (software engineer) and 300-page iPhone bill, which may be encouraging editors to cast a !vote without actually having paid close attention to the AfD at hand. Digitalfolklorist 01:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps just a coincidence, but all three of them did indeed come from DRV. It's quite funny reading that people are proposing to merge an article without even having read the target they're proposing, especially since I was the primary author of both articles.:) Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I would say 15.ai broadly fits within WP:NCORP, even if it is a web application and research project. - Enos733 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I would also say WP:NCORP applies to the 15.ai page. I'm not sure how that is relevant though. My entire concern is that the software engineer is one of the most poorly sourced BLPs I've ever seen, relying heavily on primary and unreliable sources. No one has addressed this. SportingFlyerT·C 08:21, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I presume this is not talking about me, as I neither came from DRV nor called the product a company. I also have been a long term watcher of this page and the merge target. But whoever it is aimed at, it is bad faith to impute motive to editors, or to suggest they are not familiar with what they are discussing. It is also partisan to call out one side without considering the other. I would suggest striking these comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge/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. Reywas92Talk 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. —Reywas92Talk 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. Digitalfolklorist 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. SportingFlyerT·C 22:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of WP:CREATIVE, and so do many others in this AfD. Digitalfolklorist 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?!? SportingFlyerT·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. Digitalfolklorist 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. SportingFlyerT·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.
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. SportingFlyerT·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. Digitalfolklorist 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. SportingFlyerT·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. Digitalfolklorist 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. Digitalfolklorist 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. —Reywas92Talk 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.SportingFlyerT·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. SportingFlyerT·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. —Reywas92Talk 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. SportingFlyerT·C 07:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Incorrect. Sources with significant coverage have been presented. You arbitrarily decided that they don't count. Digitalfolklorist 07:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Which sources? SportingFlyerT·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. SportingFlyerT·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. —Reywas92Talk 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! Digitalfolklorist 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)
Keep clear pass of WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG, the references available show notability of the developer that goes beyond the single project. FrankAnchor 16:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
LLM-generated, promotional, refspammed. Refs are mainly the type where Matzorkis is mentioned but is not the main topic at hand. There are also non-independent refs such as links to his personal archive as well as a "contributor" (ie paid/sketchy) article from Entrepreneur.com.
Even if Matzorkis is notable (which I'm not convinced of), this LLM-generated version is not an appropriate version of the article and should be TNT'd. ♠PMC♠(talk) 21:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello Aneirinn. I beg to differ with your assessment.
Please explain exactly how the subject fails this standard for WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: This article previously existed and was deleted in 2009. The account also seems to be Single Purpose, only edits outside of this topic are to get enough edits to create an article around the AfC process. Moritoriko (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi Moritoriko. I don't know anything about a previous article -- that's before my time. While you may think this article appears single purpose, it's not. I'm just getting started with Wikipedia. I'm doing research on obscure entrepreneurs and this is the first one I've collected enough information on to be able to create an article around. I'm hoping that future articles I write here will be welcomed.
Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This was just a comment to let people reading know about the past history of the article.
Not the article, I meant your account, you did a bunch of small edits on a variety of pages and then you made this page and (almost) all of your other edits have been adding Matzorkis to other pages as opposed to working on a wide variety of topics. This is partly because you are a new account, as you do more work it won't be an issue (hopefully:))
I am glad to hear that and I hope you can make some good articles. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much Moritoriko. I've been doing a lot of research on some other entrepreneurs who I think will rise to the standard of notable, but who don't have Wiki articles. These include Ellen Latham, co-founder of Orangetheory Fitness; Justin McLeod, founder of Hinge; and Howie Liu, co-founder and CEO of Airtable. I'm learning a lot from this discussion that will be helpful to me in the future -- thank you. Veganomics (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. (1) This article is not LLM generated. (2) This article is not promotional. (3) I don't know what "refspammed" means so I'll have to check on that.
Regarding (1): Did you run the current article through an AI detector to determine that the article is LLM gnerated? If so, please upload a copy or copy and paste the results.
Regarding (2): This guy has had a pretty remarkable entrepreneurial journey and just the very nature of the kinds of businesses he's been involved in and started might seem to be promotional, but the entertainment business reads that way. Please point out specific sections that are promotional and they can be fixed.
Regarding (3): Many of the references are published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Again, if some don't meet those criteria, then please point them out -- they can be replaced.
Finally, regarding notability, Matzorkis meets the standard here: Wikipedia:Notability (people) "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." How many is "multiple?" 3? 5? 10? 25? What is Wikipedia's baseline requirement? In this case, there are multiple articles from The Washington Post, the NY Times, the Los Angeles Times, Elle, NPR, the San Francisco Chronicle, Inc., Costco Connection, and more where Matzorkis appears and in many cases is quoted.
Thanks for your consideration. Veganomics (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am the person who tagged the article as incorporating text from an LLM. I thought it seemed overly wordy and promotional in line with other previously confirmed cases and then afterwards I selected a couple paragraphs I hadn't edited and put them in an AI-detector to see if it agreed with me. Truthfully I don't think that they are fully reliable but it did provide another data point for me to consider.
As for how many sources is multiple, the usual baseline at AfD is ~3 depending on the strength of the sources. I will go through the sources on the article here and give you some comments about them to help.
Crunchbase: Useless source, does not help when considering notability and probably not useful otherwise either
James' obituary: this source is not considered independent because it was most likely written by the family, could be used for basic uncontroversial facts possibly
Entreprenuer.com: the tone and the fact that the author is a marketer rather than reporter make me not feel great about this source
Billboard: A brief brief mention that is not significant
Cleveland Historical: No mention, good source for Henry LaConti
Youtube: not suitable as a source for anything
Copley News Service: through some search-fu I have found the article written by a journalist but it doesnt match at all with the sentences it is used to support (a problem often seen with LLM generated content). It does talk about Matzorkis though so it might be useful for a re-written article.
SFGate: no mention of Matzorkis
Overall having many of these not great sources leads to editors viewing the article poorly. The best sources I found are ones like or Moritoriko (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks very much for providing me with detailed feedback. Through this discussion I'm learning what references are considered high quality and which ones are not. Didn't realize that Crunchbase and Entrepreneur in particular are considered useless. I'll take a closer look at these and see if I can find better references and/or rewrite the passages. Thank you Veganomics (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Heaven's Gate (religious group). I found significant coverage of the subject of this AfD via ProQuesthere, and here, but they are all related to Heaven's Gate. Thus WP:BIO1E applies. While there are passing mentions about later business ventures, none of them are significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete I couldn't bring myself to check EVERY citation but I did not find even one that could be considered a reliable source. What I did find were single sentences in sources tacked on to multiple-paragraph sections that could not be attributed to him in the source, as well as sections with single citations that don't even mention him. In other words, very little of what is in this article can be verified through acceptable sources, and I find suspect that the article makes claims that are no where to be found in sources. Lamona (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I just trimmed down the article considerably, removing unsourced material and providing higher-quality sources throughout. Again, the article is not LLM-generated. I believe that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standard. He has founded numerous businesses -- many that were pioneering when they were founded, such as Web Sites Now!, U.S. SEARCH, and ZabaSearch. He owns SUP ATX paddleboards, Tequila 512, and other companies. Plus he was a key figure in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide. Thank you for your consideration. Veganomics (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and also blatantly AI-generated in violation of WP:LLM (see e.g. this diff that removed The publicly available sources consulted for this article do not provide independently verified figures for the number of teachers involved in these services or the number of ijazahs issued through the application, an example of WP:AIDISCLAIMER). No independent coverage besides routine reporting of a ceremony where the application was announced, which just repeats what the announcers have to say about the app. This should not be merged to Muslim World League because it is LLM-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I'm actively improving the article. Please identify any sections that need rewriting, and I'll address them. -Dina96 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Rewrite completed. I made a tremendous effort to improve the article, rewriting almost every line. If any issues remain, please identify the sections that need further revision, and I’ll fix them. --Dina96 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
This does not address WP:Notability at all. One of the new references is a press release and the other is a new article just published today on f7wa.com, an obscure, anonymously run online encyclopedia that does not appear to be a reliable source. And merely rewording + trimming LLM-generated text does not resolve the problem of LLM usage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have added further sources, including An-Nahar newspaper analysis, Okaz newspaper articles, and coverage of Minhaj's May 2026 partnership. I removed the f7wa reference. Minhaj is designed to serve Muslim communities worldwide, and its practical value may be less apparent to those who have not used it. However, I recognize that usefulness alone does not establish notability, and ask that the additional independent coverage be assessed under WP:GNG.--Dina96 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The An-Nahar and Okaz articles are opinion pieces that also appear to regurgitate what the announcers said at the ceremony; this is not independent, reliable coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article is LLM-generated and it is best to delete it from this wonderful website. Aneirinn (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Again, The article has been completely rewritten by hand. Please review the article history and compare the revisions before and after this discussion. The current version is a substantially revised article, NOT the original version. I believe it should be assessed based on its current content rather than its previous state 3 weeks ago.--Dina96 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Defunct media company of Univision that appears to have insufficient notability. Founded in 2016, it seems to have become defunct in 2018 according to this quote of the WSJ. Selective merge to multiple entities would be possible. IgelRM (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. IgelRM (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 10:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
This article just went through the Afd process in January 2026 and the consensus was delete. I searched for new sources and there has not been enough independent WP:SIGCOV to warrant a new decision in my opinion. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Without interviews, thier story never get to light. Am not good with Italian source, but I see RS here. Dora Lilly (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:Staticspector (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staticspector (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deleting because it mostly relies on primary sources published on the subject's website (many being user-generated, as it is a wiki). Most other sources mostly cover Conservapedia and briefly mention it as a reaction to the former. The remaining ones have to do with pseudoscience/politics in general and only mention it as a website that documents these topics. I tried to find coverage with Google by clicking on the News tab, but I didn't find anything reliable, most articles being unrelated (and just having comments or sentences containing a short reference or link to the website) and very old. See WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:PRIMARY. Koubaki (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Question. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you @Koubaki, is your primary argument for deletion that the current page relies excessively on primary sources, or that the subject does not meet WP:GNG? Digitalfolklorist 19:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The latter. Koubaki (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
delete fails WP:GNG, not to say the article is heavy on WP:SYNTH, I guess, to boost the importance of the subject. 20:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenmann (talk • contribs)
Comment: while this has survived all prior nominations (dating to 2010) to date, the last nomination (the third, from 2019) was with "no consensus", in contrast to the "keep"s in 2010 (which also closed with a pointer to the talk page for any discussion of potential mergers or redirects, which were not really part of AfD's scope at all back then in sharp contrast to today) and 2016. Even that was a hint of our tightening inclusion standards, which certainly haven't gone back the other direction in the past seven years. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch☎✎ 23:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per WP:B&R, WP:TARGET. Looking through the references I only see mentions and not a single independent source focused soley on RationalWiki. This deficiency hasn't changed since the last AfD in 2019. 5Q5|✉ 11:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep Significant reference work well worth keeping. PatGallacher (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you please cite any sources that don't have the problems I mentioned above? Koubaki (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Has just enough significant media coverage and is an important enough resource to online discussions that I think it's a valuable enough page to keep around. FunnyComedianGuy (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
@FunnyComedianGuy As I said before, most are simple sentences, not significant coverage.
Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per nom. Independent significant coverage is weak to nonexistent, only ever covered in the greater context of other subjects (namely Conservapedia). DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. RationalWiki does have significance (contrary to WP:GNG, above), and has been borne out by 1) a history of citations and mentions from various sources, including academic ones, and 2) What was regarded by some as a set of SLAPP lawsuits by multiple people associated with the modern-day racialist movement. The result of the out-of-court settlement of these lawsuits was a widespread censorship of RationalWiki pages that went far beyond those pages pertaining to the litigants. I will attempt to fill in details and citations for point 2 in the next few days on the main page for RationalWiki. ~2026-57610-28 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
1. @~2026-57610-28 Most, if not all, of these are links or simple references, as far as I can see they are not in-depth coverage. Some are tweets or forum posts, which are not reliable sources.
2. Lawsuits don't make a subject notable.
I'm waiting for your second point. Koubaki (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I believe the 2023 paper (reference #18 at time of writing) amounts to significant, independent, and reliable coverage. When considering the other sources that mention RationalWiki in the context of Conservapedia, remember that [s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It's close, but on the whole I feel that GNG is met. mdm.bla 02:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@Mdm.Bla It's only used to describe its content once in the article, it even has a clarification needed tag. It's not used for anything else. The study itself only chooses it because it's the opposite of (and a reaction to) Conservapedia, and Conservapedia (and its criticisms of Wikipedia) is the main thing that the article is studying. Koubaki (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why would that matter at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The Krebs et al. study only compares RationalWiki's user-generated content with other wikis. It is not significant coverage, as it does not address RationalWiki directly and in detail. It is simply used as a specimen and as the ideological opposite of Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Why would that not be significant coverage? WP:SIGCOV. It is plainly sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. This does not. Again, it only uses it as a data source for the study. Do you have any other sources that you believe are WP:SIGCOV and don't have the other issues that I and several others stated (eg. WP:PRIMARY)? Koubaki (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It does address the subject directly and in detail, for hundreds of words. No, the study discusses the website, and analyzes the website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
It only uses it as a data point in the study, and the only other time it references it is when it provides the necessary context for it (a description), to use it as a data point. It does not discuss it or analyze it outside of this. Koubaki (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
...are we reading the same paper? I don't know how you'd get that at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment If someone here is willing and able to unprotect the RationalWiki page for anonymous edits, I can give the details on the lawsuits there, otherwise I can put it on the talk page. Three of the nine people who sued RationalWiki at around the same time for defamation have Wikipedia pages: Jan te Nijenhuis, Noah Carl, Razib Khan, so I think that adds to notability. About 60 people and entities who were not party to the lawsuits nonetheless had their RationalWiki pages removed as part of the out-of-court settlement. Several of these pages also have Wikipedia pages (e.g., Charles Murray, Richard Hanania, The Unz Review, International Society for Intelligence Research, and Quilette). Thus, the terms of the settlement, censoring non-litigant pages, is evidence that this was an orchestrated censorship campaign by the far-right racialist movement, which I believe also adds notability. ~2026-57610-28 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
As I said, lawsuits don't make a subject notable, even if the plaintiffs are notable. See WP:INHERIT. Koubaki (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Note that @~2026-57610-28 appears to be a single-purpose account as they have never edited Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) prior to this discussion. Koubaki (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-57610-28 As noted earlier, this is a brand-new temporary account with no prior editing history. The comments show very detailed knowledge of RationalWiki's 2025 lawsuits and settlement terms. Per WP:COI, if you have any affiliation with RationalWiki or the RationalMedia Foundation, please disclose it. Koubaki (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I am affiliated with RationalWiki. I also have a Wikipedia account in good standing though rather inactive. Due to the the very real threat of doxing by the former litigants, I'm not going to use my Wikipedia account. ~2026-57610-28 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep multiple sources with sigcov per mdm.bla and so GNG is met. That the article is not ideal is not a reason for deletion; there's worthwhile material here, it isn't a stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
1. Please provide some examples of sources that are sigcov.
2. Most sources are what I said, which is primary and short references. Almost none are sigcov. Again, see point 1. Koubaki (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Also, nobody in this discussion said that the article isn't "ideal".
Academic article that has SIGCOV discussing RationalWiki.
Academic article that has WP:SIGCOV of RationalWiki.
Academic article in the journal Linguagem em (Dis)curso that has WP:SIGCOV of RationalWiki.
A several hundred word article in the magazine Information Today (full cite "The Wacky Wiki World" O'Leary, Mick. Information Today; Medford Vol. 27, Iss. 10, (Nov 2010): 34,40.)
News article from The Register that has several paragraphs of sigcov on RationalWiki.
Plainly passes WP:GNG. Your argument above that discussions of it that compare it wouldn't count is not based in notability guidelines or policy. And "ideal", well, your argument in your nom rests on the quality of the current article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
[2] I've responded to your comment about this source
[3] basically has the same issues
[4] I couldn't access this one, I had to use archive.org, seems to be in Portuguese and have the same issues as [2], every sentence that had the word RationalWiki was right next to Conservapedia
[Information Today] Could you give a link?
[5] That's definitely not sigcov, it's a mention on an article about Conservapedia Koubaki (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Change position to redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki I agree with several other editors in this discussion that the article should be redirected instead of simply deleted. I'm changing my position as the nominator.
2. As I said that there is no issue with the source.
3. Same thing as I said above.
4. Non English sources are just as reliable, see WP:NONENGLISH.
Information Today, it is on ProQuest.
5. WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There are several paragraphs about rationalwiki, that it is in an article named after something else is not relevant. Several hundred words is sigcov, see WP:100WORDS for one benchmark. By this logic Conservapedia itself is not notable because all of the sources discuss it in relation to Wikipedia.
A redirect is worse than a deletion, it is an unrelated website. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I never said that because it's non-English it's less reliable, I didn't want to imply that. Koubaki (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Well then your objection is that the discussion of it is next to something else, which, per WP:SIGCOV, is not a concern. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Not really, it is basically the same reason as [2] and [3], which is that it does not address the topic directly and in detail. Koubaki (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
How is 300 words about something not "directly and in detail"? What do you think "direct" and "detail" mean? SIGCOV already specifies it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like the Information Today article has the same problem as [5].
About the redirect, several editors agreed with me, and I actually originally wanted to propose a redirect, but when I proposed it I propose a deletion, so now I think that's a better and more logical stance, as most if not all secondary coverage has to do with Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
IMO, Conservapedia#RationalWiki is a poor redirect target because of potential WP:NPOV issues. I can understand why a redirect would be proposed, but my opinion on the sources, namely that they're just sufficient for a standalone article, remains the same. mdm.bla 22:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
...what? You voted delete, but then other editors agreed with you by arguing for a redirect, so since you were correct to... change your vote to redirect?
There is a several hundred word article about Rationalwiki. By this logic why not delete the Conservapedia article and merge it to Wikipedia? All the sources about Conservapedia are discussing it in reference to Wikipedia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
No, there are dozens of sources that discuss and analyze Conservapedia as an independent website, directly and in detail. By contrast, RationalWiki is either treated as a footnote or as a data point, always as a reaction to or opposite of Conservapedia. This is definitely not the same as Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Koubaki (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Just want to point out that WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT aka WP:B&R only removes the article from public view and is not deletion. The talk page and edit history remain accessible and the article could be reinstated in the future once SIGCOV issues are addressed with better sourcing and not likely to result in another AfD. 5Q5|✉ 12:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I agree, that's what should happen. Koubaki (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
This should not be redirected to an opposite topic because they happened to be mentioned in the same article. If the issue is notability it should simply be deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
By contrast, RationalWiki is either treated as a footnote or as a data point, always as a reaction to or opposite of Conservapedia ... no? All the sources I linked discuss RationalWiki for multiple paragraphs. The context isn't even conservapedia, it's more "wikis", as in Wikipedia too. If the issue is "reaction to or opposite of" then as I said Conservapedia also has this issue. Looking at the sources for Conservapedia, all of them are treating it as a "reaction to or opposite of" Wikipedia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 15:59, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
The article was created by a UPE editor. After reviewing the available sources, the subject does not meet WP:GNG and fails the general notability guideline. The article was also deleted from the Russian Wikipedia, which is relevant given the application's country of origin. Semerotan (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes(Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, guninvalid (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the nominator has since been blocked themselves as a UPE editor. No opinion on the article, beyond that this has been tagged as a potential NPRODUCT failure almost since its creation in March. WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Bases off your assessment and the sources I see, I'm happy to throw in a !vote for Delete. guninvalid (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Based on the name, I was expecting it to be some random village in England. Imagine my disappointment to find it was just an advert instead. • ꕤ Stylomecon ✎ • «talk» • 05:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
