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 WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. 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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Engineering|~~~~}} 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

watch

Engineering

Duy-Loan Le

Duy-Loan Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Self-promotional BLP that is non-salvageable per WP:TNT. The lady is not notable, since she did not receive independent coverage from WP:RS. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Engineering, Vietnam, and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Synergy Institute of Engineering & Technology

Synergy Institute of Engineering & Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Odisha. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails notability and WP:NSCHOOL.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Pranveer Singh Institute of Technology (PSIT), Kanpur

Pranveer Singh Institute of Technology (PSIT), Kanpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article about a private college. Fails NORG and GNG. Sources are routine. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete the sources are infact not reliable at all. Fails WP: WP:NSCHOOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Government College of Engineering, Kalahandi

Government College of Engineering, Kalahandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Seemanta Engineering College

Seemanta Engineering College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. most of the sources on this page currently are rankings Filmssssssssssss (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G6 as a page obviously created in error. The page was draftified at the same time another editor was fixing it. This also results in issues with attribution, as the page has lost the history of edits which were moved with the draft. Whpq (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Chesterfield and District Model Engineers

Chesterfield and District Model Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I went through the only 6 pages of google results, I found no independent sources giving significant coverage. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 21:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Obvious delete, original article was draftified, then redirected, and this one was re-created after in error (see User:Northernhenge). Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 05:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  It was draftified while I was editing it to fix some obvious problems, so when I saved the updated version, it created a new article. If it hadn't been draftified, I would then have tagged it for notability, left it a few hours, then proposed it for deletion if still unsourced. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Shujaat Khan (engineer)

Shujaat Khan (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Basically a WP:PROMO created by a WP:COI. Non-notable local activist. Longhornsg (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, Religion, Islam, Bangladesh, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable and not neutral. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 13:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Just not notable. The sources don't even mention the subject. — Raihanur (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete subject is definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of the Chicago "L"

Proposed expansion of the Chicago "L" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Chicago "L"#Planned extensions, because there is a serious lack of sources and cohesion present in this article. I tried to completely restructure the entire article to include much more information and sources, but the restructuring was denied on submission. AlphaBeta135talk 15:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and Illinois. AlphaBeta135talk 15:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Why did you submit your changes as a new article instead of just implementing them in the existing one? A restructing wasn't what was rejected, a new duplicative page was. I would have rejected the draft for that reason as well since you aren't following regular procedures, but they seem good. Just edit the existing article but make your changes section-by-section so it's easier to follow. Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  This was the rationale for the draft's denial: "This draft does not have sufficient content to warrant a standalone article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Chicago "L"#Planned extensions" (I highlighted the bolded text for relevance). So, the rationale was not what you described. Also, if the draft was accepted, there would not be a "new duplicative page" but rather a "round robin" move or similar. AlphaBeta135talk 16:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Reywas92 – just edit the existing article with the material from the draft. The subject has enough coverage for an independent article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @AirshipJungleman29. AlphaBeta135talk 17:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Pi’s comment above seems correct. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Marcin Kamiński (professor of technical sciences)

Marcin Kamiński (professor of technical sciences) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of many pages of academics at the Lodz University of Technology recently created directly in main by a novice editor who appears to be following a template. Associate professor in mechanical engineering with a h-factor of 30 and ~2.9K cites, too low for NPROF. Page has awards, but they are all junior or minor. At the minimum COI, I have asked page creator about UPE, no response as yet. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Poland. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Compared with some of the others from Lodz University of Technology this one seems almost acceptable. One good thing is that most of his well cited publications have no more than two authors, many with just one. For someone active at least since 1996 one might expect a somewhat better profile, but again, it's not bad. Athel cb (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Dariusz Makowski

Dariusz Makowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of many pages of academics at the Lodz University of Technology recently created directly in main by a novice editor who appears to be following a template. Associate professor in electrical engineering with a h-factor of 21 and ~2K cites, too low for NPROF. Page contains two unsourced awards, and WP:PEACOCK. At the minimum COI, I have asked page creator about UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Computing. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Citation counts not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, no other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Google Scholar very unimpressive (h = 21). Athel cb (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Florida State Road 112. (non-admin closure) BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Interstate 195 (Florida)

Interstate 195 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Florida State Road 112 because the highway is both completely concurrent with the former and is very short. Furthermore, the Dolphin East–West Expressway article also encompasses I-395, so there is also local precedent for having a single article. However, there are also other similar cases of there being a single article for two concurrent highways, such as Interstate 25 in Colorado (I-25 and US 87), U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee (I-26 and US 23), U.S. Route 78 in Mississippi (I-22 and US 78), and Interstate 169 (Texas) (I-169 and SH 550). However, my main argument for merging really has to do more about the shortness of this article; I feel like it can easily be integrated into that article to make it more cohesive and to avoid a redundant WP:CFORK because of SR 112 already being a relatively short highway. In all fairness, there are cases where concurrent highways (I-41, I-894, and US 41) and (I-14 and US 190) have their own articles because each have enough content to warrant them, but this seems like a case where a single article would make more sense. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Engineering, Transportation, United States of America, and Florida. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge since the article that's being merged into already has a section on Interstate 195, and it seems to be major overlap. Definitely don't need there to be two articles parroting the same highway info,

TheNerdy Parakeet (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as there's not enough data for it to have a separate article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

15 (software engineer)

15 (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to 15.ai. Personal life section is primary sourced fluff, everything else is better covered in the website article. No indication of independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, Computing, and Internet. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Artificial intelligence, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai. No notability for a standalone article. Skyshiftertalk 12:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:BASIC; independent notability is met as the subject is a primary focus of both the articles 15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal, both of which have plenty of sources that are not currently used in the nominated article. The article is incomplete, but the problems are entirely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. –GM 16:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal is clearly a subtopic of 15.ai, I'm not convinced it needs to be a standalone article (at the very least it needs a hatchet taken to it to pare it down from 80,000 bytes). This is not is convincing case for independent notability. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  What?! That topic is clearly not a subtopic of 15.ai. It easily passes WP:GNG, has WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a long period of time, has multiple sections and paragraphs that don't involve 15.ai at all, and has an entire Legacy section filled with WP:RS talking about how important it was in the general landscape of video games and NFTs. Why in the world would that article be a subtopic of 15.ai as opposed to, say, a subtopic of Troy Baker or a subtopic of NFT controversies? The article itself is GA quality, so I don't know where you're getting this notion at all that the article needs to be rewritten. Proposing that the nominated article and the whole Voiceverse article be merged into 15.ai is seriously baffling and raises the question of whether you actually read all of the article's sources in full (I did). –GM 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai cause there really isnt much to the article that isnt already discussed at 15.ai, tbh the pseudonymous nature of the individual is going to make quality blp sources extremely difficult and a lot of the sources used i think currently at least border on WP:BLPGOSSIP. i do want to also note an article about this individual was already blanked and redirected once before and i think the reasoning why is still a solid argument for the redirect today Ibnqirtaiba (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC) —  Ibnqirtaiba is a confirmed sockpuppet of BrocadeRiverPoems, see investigation.
• Redirect to 15.ai, the subject does not have independent notability as the majority of the sources are about the website and not the individual themselves. MidnightMayhem (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep due to WP:CREATIVE #3, subject created 15.ai which has been primary subject of multiple international independent periodical articles and more. I don't see why independent notability is important that it mandates a redirect, there does not seem to be official policy that require this. We have articles Speechify and Cliff Weitzman, who is notable for nothing outside of Speechify. Arguably Weitzman's article should be a redirect more than 15's because 15.ai's reach was much wider than Speechify. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bronymike2010 see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:NBLP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro That's where WP:CREATIVE comes from on the same page, an additional criteria along with the regular notability criteria. Independent notability is moot because subject qualifies CREATIVE #3, warranting an article. Bronymike2010 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bronymike2010, and must also pass WP:GNG.

As GM mentions below part of the claim is WP:BLP1E Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: No, I'm saying that I disagree with the WP:BLP1E argument. The subject does pass WP:GNG. It's just a matter of improving the article, which I unfortunately cannot because I am blocked due to edit warring. Once the block is over, though, I'll make sure to improve it substantially. –GM 08:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Fully understood. I was pointing out to Bronymike2010, the rationale and policy/guidelines being cited. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: No problem. I only wanted to clarify because I saw that you were repeating the same argument above, hoping you'd reconsider. –GM 08:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at that illustrate that this is not a case of BLP1E? Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro: Here's a sample of multiple WP:RS showing coverage occurring at different periods for different reasons:

• Feng, Bai (March 15, 2020). "模型参数过亿跑不动？看MIT小哥，少量数据完成高质量文本转语音！" [Struggling with Models with Over 100 Million Parameters? See How an MIT Student Achieved High‑Quality Text‑to‑Speech with Minimal Data!]. QQ News (in Chinese). XinZhiYuan. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025. (pre-2021 15.ai)
• Chandraseta, Rionaldi (January 21, 2021). "Generate Your Favourite Characters' Voice Lines using Machine Learning". Towards Data Science. Archived from the original on January 21, 2021. Retrieved December 18, 2024. (during operation in 2021)
• Wright, Steve (January 17, 2022). "Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission". Stevivor. Archived from the original on January 17, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2025. (Voiceverse scandal)
• Abisola, Shojobi (January 3, 2025). "The MIT Project That Paved Way For Modern Voice AI". Independent. Archived from the original on February 27, 2025. Retrieved February 27, 2025. (post-15.ai)
• Irpan, Alex (July 21, 2025). "Brony Musicians Seize The Means of Production: My Eyewitness Account to BABSCon 2025". Alex Irpan. Archived from the original on July 30, 2025. Retrieved October 1, 2025. (fandom impact and involvement; the author is a Senior Research Scientist at Google Deepmind with over 26,000 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 31(!), so WP:EXPERTSPS applies)

–GM 08:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS explicitly does not apply to BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechify and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Weitzman have been nominated for deletion. Madeleine (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral/Week merge Merge/Redirect per nom and Skyshifter. I am not seeing how this subject would warrant it's own page. That being said, I would prefer a merger over a redirect, as there does appear to be some useful and encyclopedic content. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: The above arguments are essentially invoking WP:BLP1E, in that the claim is that the subject is only notable for having created 15.ai. In my opinion, WP:BLP1E is inapplicable here. The subject is covered in connection with both having created and operated 15.ai and separately for a substantial and well-documented role in the Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal that is notable enough to have its own article. BLP1E directly states Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. which isn't true here. –GM 07:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  After reading the sources that GM has pointed out (above), I have striked my redirect. I have a very week stance on a merger due to the bio may pass WP:GNG. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: I don't think a merge is appropriate here, as it would then be grounds for WP:SPLITTING again as the 15.ai article should be focused on the website. The Background section is already long as it is and largely focuses on the technology behind what made the website unique. It wouldn't make sense to merge only to include additional information about its creator irrelevant to the website when we could easily fix it by having a separate article per WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPINOFF for this: the main situation where spinoff articles become necessary is when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article. –GM 08:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Issac I Navarro: Respectfully disagree that a merge is preferable to a redirect. Note the above blocked confirmed sockpuppet User:Ibnqirtaiba removed over half of the content originally in the article, so its current state cannot reliably be consulted as its basis. With the sources above, there is more than likely content to be added back that would not belong to potential merge targets. WP:MERGE advises against merging where the separate topics can be expanded into standalone articles, and the sourcing presented above establishes that this one can, under both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATOR criterion 3. Madeleine (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above arguments. Subject meets WP:GNG per above sources, and WP:NCREATOR makes it cut and dried. Merging is not appropriate per GM. At least one editor has expressed intent in improving the article after the AfD ends, so redirecting is less appropriate than keeping. WP:NCREATOR expressly permits coverage of a creator's significant work, rather than requiring every article to be a conventional profile of the creator; particularly important in the case of a pseudonymous creator.

BLP1E applies only when all its conditions are satisfied, beginning with reliable sources covering the person only in connection with one event. The cited coverage above spans the development and operation of 15.ai, the 2022 Voiceverse incident, and retrospective discussion of the project's influence. The sourcing signifies that this is a sustained body of work and its consequences, than a person briefly caught in a singular news event. Madeleine (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - decidedly not BLP1E - it's a creative process, which is generally not considered 1 event, in the same way that someone known for one book or one song or one company is not a BLP1E - in this case, there's a lot of coverage during and after the project on different stages of it and on the subject's work. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If 15.ai did not exist- for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NCREATOR (and NACTOR, but here NCREATOR)'s whole thing is that this is the way notability can, in fact, be inherited - from notable work to its creator. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

NCREATOR does not give automatic inheritance. At most, it says notability is *likely* if xxx or yyy. So for arguments sake- if we removed all notability inherited from involvement with 15.ai, what does this article look like? Help me understand what encyclopedic content is left if we remove any information about 15.ai? Sesamehoneytart 17:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 15.ai#History per WP:NOPAGE. I am not seeing anything in the article or the above sources to justify a standalone biography that could expand on information not already in the 15.ai article. The struck !vote above makes a good point that being pseudonymous makes it harder to write a biographical article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Helpful Raccoon: To be fair, that very sockpuppet had removed most of the content that was present on the article and was later proven to have a personal grudge against the subject, so there was some foul play happening with the article and should not be consulted as a reliable basis. As for expanding the article, I find that the sources that discuss the subject's fandom to be sufficient to allow for its own article; additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED expressly mentions WP:NCREATOR as one of the four notability guidelines that do allow for inherited notability. Madeleine (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: A WP:HISTMERGE needs to be done with Draft:15 (software engineer). Just a note to @Madeleine961: you should use the WP:MOVE functionality to move pages out of draftspace instead of cut-and-paste moves. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Kirodimal Govt. Polytechnic, Raigarh

Kirodimal Govt. Polytechnic, Raigarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL Filmssssssssssss (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Lean keep: A GNews hit reveals two Hindi-language sources, both of which have SIGCOV. But I ain't sure if they are reliable or not. Can someone check if these sources can be considered as RS or not - . If they pass, these would be sufficient to save the page. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 18:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)