Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
Chatbots (and the large language models that power them) have become very popular; they can often output material much faster than humans can. Unfortunately, they cannot write as well as humans (yet), and their output is prone to hallucinations, false citations, and other errors. This has created a major cleanup burden at Wikipedia, as many editors (especially new ones) try their hand at using artificial intelligence to edit Wikipedia. You can help by identifying AI-written text, removing unsourced or inaccurate claims, and by identifying AI-generated images. For more information, see our AI Cleanup Guide.
30 Jul 2026 – AI Expo Taiwan(talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see {{slink|Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Heeheemalu}}. Feel free to reinstate by following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.
Fails WP:NCORP. Appears notable neither as an online marketplace nor as a gaming / eSports brand; the sources do not contain the requisite significant, independent coverage. The only source with nontrivial coverage, Info Argentum, is blatantly promotional. ~ A412talk!20:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose merging to Penetration test because automated and semi-automated approaches are a routine part of penetration testing. These approaches make more sense to discuss in context with the practice as a whole.
Also, this article is an orphan (no other articles link to it), and it has substantial signs of being written with an LLM (see WP:AISIGNS), such as the whole paragraph with "To avoid implying consensus, this article describes". Better to scrap this article and merge anything useful and verified into the main article, instead of trying to rewrite it. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge but with extreme caution due to apparent LLM use. Recent LLM is prone to subtle source/text mismatches and overgeneralizations. M kuhner (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Many of the sources do not verify claims. That, plus scanners indicate probable AI. Nothing in the page indicates a pass of either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. I will trust Bearian's statement that it is recreated, so salt seems appropriate.Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and what Ldm1954 said, one of the more visually obvious AISIGNS is an WP:AIREDCAT in the initial revision. No preference on salting, but it often just makes it less obvious that something has been recreated. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
From this I see WP:AILEGACY ("popularly known as", "Garnered national attention", "sparked strong reactions"), WP:AIHEADING (two headings jumping straight to subheadings), WP:AILIST (bonus: mixed use of ordered and unordered lists)
No problem, sorry for blowing this up, but I actually saw it as a chance to get some attention for the article in question. Much of the work over at WP:AINB is being done by a small number of editors, and as it's a new process for us it seems like an occasional AfD might be good attention toward some of the problematic content being dealt with, but I'm open to a speedy close of this (and I should have reached out to you first, tbh). ASUKITE21:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Next time I'll reach out to the editor who removed the PROD. If a closer would like to agree, I will Withdraw this nomination in favor of allowing LLMPROD to take place. (Noting this is not a keep !vote) ASUKITE18:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Bringing this here for discussion rather than unilaterally re-draftifying since the AfD was sparsely attended and nom was subsequently blocked. That said, this has many WP:AISIGNS and not enough sourcing to meet N:CORP. If it does close as draftify, suggest move protection to enforce AfC. StarMississippi00:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The content of this article is about pulmonary nodules in elephants. Pulmonary nodules occur in other species, including humans. This either needs to be moved to pulmonary nodules in elephants, completely rewritten to cover to the topic of pulmonary nodules in general, or possibly deleted if there is no consensus to move to the existing article to pulmonary nodules in elephants. Plantdrew (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
this is a non-controversial Move that you could probably do without an AfD. I'm not entirely sure that the world needs an article on something so specific as pulmonary nodules in elephants, but it's got sources, it's probably right, so it's not a problem. It'd be great if someone extended it to a general article back at the present title, but since we can't guarantee anyone will do so in the near future, it's probably best to move it for the present, and let future developments take their course. Elemimele (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Move - agreed - the topic of this article is really specific but evidently has enough sources to function, and that article is pulmonary nodules in elephants so it should be at the correct spot. Jishara (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete I believe this is LLM-created since it was all done in a single edit by an editor who's never made large contributions or edits on this kind of topic before and it uses the bolded, bulleted items. The Etiology section is cited to an article on Aspergillosis and doesn't seem relevant to that content or mention elephants in the abstract. None of the sources even include the word "nodule" at all! (though three of them only show abstracts, they don't really fit together to justify this article). Reywas92Talk15:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete per Reywas92's justifications, seems to be a clear WP:NOLLM violation, and since it's not even remotely related to pulmonary nodules outside of elephant, it seems like there was no particular effort put in after the slop. Delete the page, and consider Admin Noticeboard action against the creator. Foxtrot620 (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The article is about a future event. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. Most of the sources are announcements based on information provided by organizers. The page is premature too, a lot of elaboration on planned activities and expected features are mentioned. Wikipicked (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nom and for failing NOLLM. Sentences like international coverage of India's AI sector highlighted government-backed initiatives, infrastructure investments and industry partnerships aimed at increasing the country's role in the global artificial intelligence ecosystem are WP:AIATTR, WP:SUPERFICIAL analysis, groups of three, and WP:AILEGACY all rolled up into one. Didn't check for source integrity, because I was already sure enough that this is generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn22:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a residential condominium in Hawai'i. Its designer may be notable but notability is not inherited. An unsourced section says that it has appeared in movies and TV shows, but I'm not convinced that is notable under WP:NBUILD. A bit part in a movie doesn't make an actor notable, I don't see why it would make a building notable. I don't see significant coverage of its architecture or history. Article is also partly LLM (and heavily edited by sockpuppets), so the current text has to go; before trying to stubify, though, I'd like to know if there's anything here to save. M kuhner (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete A generic condo tower with an equally generic name that is used on hundreds of other properties throughout the English-speaking world. There's nothing notable about this development and its appearance in TV and film is ineivtable as part of a skyline, certainly not any specific call-out or plot importance. Nathannah • 📮23:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Delete. No indications of notability, per nom. In addition the page creator has had at least 3 articles criticized recently: this AfD, a draftification for notability of Draft:Szymon Szufa and I just CSD'd for AI Vignesh Kumaravel. Too many recent bad page creations by the novice user Dropkin26, may need some more action.Ldm1954 (talk)
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)reply
One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 34 & 3.4K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No awards and most of the page is promo that would be removed if the page is retained. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons given. The page claims that she is in the Stanford University list of top 2% scientists, but curiously the link given is to a page in Polish (which I can't read). Why not give a link to the list itself, at https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/ ? Searching for her name yields "no matching result found", however I write her name. It finds scientists I know with no problem, so it's not that I don't know how to search it. Athel cb (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 27 & 3.6K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No significant awards. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article will remain on pl wiki which is more inclusive to academics. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of keeping it here and I concur the sourcing is not strong enough to argue for inclusion due to the lack of similar inclusive rulings (at WP:NPROF) as on pl wiki (where habilitation is sufficient). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - The nominator's rationale relies entirely on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy (stating other people don't have articles). The subject clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG). He is the credited Director of Photography for multiple notable, theatrically released films (Jatta, Beautiful Manasugalu, Sinnga). I have just updated the article with reliable secondary sources, including reviews from The Times of India and Bangalore Mirror, which specifically highlight and praise his cinematography work. The orphan tag has also been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajwikirak (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Your claim of "The nominator's rationale relies entirely on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy (stating other people don't have articles)" isn't true at all, it's fallacious. The nominator makes no such claim anywhere in their nomination statement. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)09:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete- No WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the newest version of the article are reviews and a profile of his movies. The movies might be notable, but WP:notability is not inherited. As long as there are no sources that establish he is notable, he does not meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. Cicada1010 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Forget about sigcov, I can hardly find any coverage. The Iranian Film Festival in Zurich won't be held until october, and is still taking submissions. The ISAN registration is the only thing that tells me this film is a thing at all, the other source used does not. Not notable, not under WP:NFF or WP:GNG. The AI-generated poster and WP:AIDASHes don't instill hope in me that this doesn't include WP:LLM-generated text either. The article creator attempted circumventing the AfC process as well. YuniToumei (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
In addition to the LLM issues, there are no sources present that help this pass WP:NBOOK. There are questionably reliable interviews and nothing else; interviews can be helpful to build out an article but do not help notability unless there is substantial independent content in the piece, which is not the case here. A search found no other sources that are all 3 of independent, significant coverage, and reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
hi, thank you for your note. In addition to the The Times newspaper reference, and Crack magazine end of year list refrenced. The book was subject to at least two independent reviews from note worthy print magazines. Would proof of those reviews help? ~2026-41850-33 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Those sources are interviews or do not have sigcov on the book.
Comment Right now, I’m not seeing enough here to count these as proper reviews. The wire and mojo citations are missing page numbers and do not show any details how much coverage there was. The wax poetics one is even shakier and may just be a blurb. Until someone provides fuller citations or copies, I would not use them for WP:NBOOK. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Almost certainly non-notable businessman. The article has been mangled by LLM use, but was always weak: Of the two sources with external links, one doesn't mention Weston at all, one is an extremely trivial name-drop, and the first two I can't find at all (not in a web search nor the Internet Archive). Rather promotional tone and far too much detail for the level of sourcing given. He's a real person and I can find routine database listings, but nothing anywhere about him. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. How can someone awarded the CBE possibly be non-notable? It's a very high honour only awarded to notable individuals. We have always assumed recipients of the CBE and above to be notable. Also chief executive of one of the most important companies in the UK. Also meets WP:GNG with a Google search showing plenty of hits (contrary to the claim by the nominator). Very obviously notable in any sense of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep There may be legitimate concerns about the article’s current quality, but those can be addressed through improvement and do not support the stated nomination rationale of non-notability. A brief search identifies substantial coverage of Weston in multiple independent, reliable sources, including The Observer, BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, the Evening Standard, The Telegraph, Aviation Week and FlightGlobal. Much of this coverage concerns his departure from BAE Systems, but it discusses Weston and his leadership in significant depth rather than merely mentioning his name. The range and extent of independent coverage are sufficient to establish notability under the general notability guideline. Any problems with sourcing, WP:PROMO or other article quality concerns are arguments for editing or restructuring it, not for deletion.Mark83 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Admins, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the sources cited by the last user are added to the article. I don't agree that they're all specifically about Weston, but they're far more than I was able to find and probably enough to put the subject over WP:NBIO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Author has admitted to LLM use (see WP:AINB § User:Global Donald) and article has clear WP:AISIGNS. LLMPROD repeatedly contested but I don't think the LLM text has been adequately cleaned up. As a separate issue, the vast majority of citations appear to be WP:CORPTRIV and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. M kuhner (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep This article covers the most notable investment coalition related to carbon dioxide removal-- after major tech companies such as Google and Microsoft, they are the single largest source of investment in the space.
I reviewed the sources and claims on the document, and have reviewed the framing/language use: this is consistent with over 5 years of monitoring these topics. Yes it included AI text at one point in history, before the policy about AI text was in place. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem if you think the flavor of the text is not neutral -- however, all the sources and the claims check out for me (with 20 years of work on wiki, and over 7 years working on climate topics). Sadads (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I will respectfully ask that you look specifically for claims cited to source A but only verified by source B. This is a serious problem with recent LLM and it is difficult for a topic expert to catch because every claim seems reasonable. However "this is supported by A" when it is only supported by B is still a falsehood.
Would also be interested in an analysis of how the large block of text on dollar values of investments is not WP:CORPTRIV, and what are the three best sources for notability. M kuhner (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I just went back and double checked all the double or triple citations again (for at least the third time) they map to the specific factual claims.
Moreover, the coalitions purchases/investments are covered in Bloomberg, Rueters, WSJ, and Anxios -- alongside ample industry or climate press.
IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to block the existence of an article, especially when it is at the center of an industry. I am not bullish on Carbon dioxide removal, nor particularly like Frontier as a company. BUT their investments are ubiquitous in this space, and includes a lot of money from major actors -- making it notable simply as from it significance as a funder. Sadads (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There's no IDONTLIKEIT here. This is one of 600+ articles with significant contribution from an admitted LLM using editor and I'm just working my way through them. Thank you for checking the sources, that's extremely helpful. I will let the AfD run through in the hopes of getting more comments on notability, but I think we can consider the LLM issue dealt with. (I wasn't able to do this myself, because again, 600 articles.) M kuhner (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis against NCORP? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!07:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally, I don't see any strong signs of AI-generation, especially given its first revision contains many human-like errors. AI-polished, maybe, but not wholesale generation. Catalk to me!15:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment (COI disclosure). I am disclosing a conflict of interest under WP:PAID/WP:COI: I am affiliated with Hostaway. I am not editing the article during this discussion and post here only to offer a source assessment for uninvolved editors to weigh.
I agree with the nominator that much of the current sourcing is WP:CORPTRIV - the funding-round and valuation pieces (TechCrunch 2023/2024, PhocusWire, Business Wire, the December 2024 valuation reports) should be discounted for notability despite the outlets being reliable. The keep case does not rest on them.
The coverage I believe meets WP:SIRS independently of the funding narrative: Talouselämä (21 Feb 2018), a product-and-market analysis of the platform in the context of short-term-rental regulation, in a major Finnish business publication - independent secondary analysis, not a raise announcement, predating the funding coverage. Taken together with sustained coverage across independent reliable outlets from 2018 to 2025 and the independently reported milestone of becoming the first short-term-rental-management unicorn (verified $1B valuation; $365M round led by General Atlantic), I believe the subject clears WP:NCORP.
On WP:NOLLM: authorship method is not a deletion criterion, and the article's factual claims are supported by the cited reliable sources. If any passage reads as promotional, the remedy is copyediting, not deletion.
If consensus is that the independent depth is still insufficient, I would ask that the article be draftified rather than deleted, so it can be resubmitted via WP:AFC once further independent coverage exists. HostawayOfficial (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Appreciate you sharing the rule about AI, but this is in fact a human. I'm just trying to abide by Wikipedia's rules for engagement and nomenclature. ~2026-40818-18 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Appreciate you sharing the rule about AI, but this is in fact a human. I'm just trying to abide by Wikipedia's rules for engagement and nomenclature. AlexfromHostaway (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Salvaging the content is not possible either given the information present and how it's written. Agreeing with nom and their assessment. ABehjat (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Hold up. This was published by Lane Raspberry, whom I rather doubt was using AI. It appears to have been made in an editathon. Why do you think it is AI? Was it introduced after Lane published it? If so, surely this can be salvaged by just reverting to an earlier version. Or perhaps Lane has insight into its creation? CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
For me, the section labelled `Neurodiversity-lite` sounded a lot like an AI article (basically like an essay transformed to a Wiki article template/format). ABehjat (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sounds good - I wasn't aware of the context, and was reviewing the most recent set of changes and it was a lot of back and forth between two users so I thought it was spam.
(If we restore to original created article) - Rename to "Neurodiversity in work environments" or "Workplace accommodations for neurodiverse persons" - title(s) better suiting the sources, since the sources don't mention "labor rights"
@Avatar317: I do not have a rename suggestion. There are Wikipedia articles or redirects for "labor rights by (country)", and I chose this title based on that precedent, which is an adequate fit but there could be something better. Bluerasberry (talk)13:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: I oppose a deletion, but whether to merge or move is up to you all. Everyone knows Blueraspberry, who ran for the WMF board, and by reputation would never create an AI article. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, I agree with the above, frankly. Lane is certainly far from someone to use AI in their writing. The article also definitely seems noteworthy here, and I would oppose a merge as above. The topic of neurodiversity is far broader than just autism. EggRoll97(talk) 04:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
How is this possibly the correct name for this? "Historically, neurodivergent people have experienced unemployment much more often than neurotypical people" is not about labor rights. "In 2015 Ernst & Young established a program to recruit autistic workers" is not about labor rights. "A common advantage is difference of perspective; because the demographic has a different lived experience, individuals in that demographic can speak for themselves to share opinions which often differ from neurotypical people" is not about labor rights. Of course its noteworthy, but there's another much better article that has the same content and more. This is way too duplicative to keep separate. The other article is welcome to include other types of neurodiversity besides autism but keeping this in addition to it is redundant and unnecessary, these are in no way distinct topics. — Reywas92Talk16:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It very much appears to be about labor rights to me, including at least two of the sections you pointed out. I'm also strongly against any move or merge that titles it autism instead of just generally neurodiversity, because there are a lot of cases with one or both. Jishara (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Can you point out any SOURCES for this article that use the term "labor rights" ? Your own belief in what makes "labor rights" doesn't matter here, what matters is what sources say about the topic. ---Avatar317(talk)20:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus on the subject, not the title. Renaming the article is a simple editorial action that doesn't require AfD. Also be aware that being "noteworthy", or even notable, isn't a valid argument against merging, per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON, if readers are better served seeing the content in one place. And again, neurodivergent being different from autistic does not, by itself, prevent a merger, if titles are amended accordingly. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎07:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Don't merge to anything with "autism" in the title unless the target can be renamed and is being expanded: autism and neurodiversity are not synonyms. There are lots of forms of neurodiversity that have consequences for employment, require accommodations in the workplace, or might end up affecting employment law, but are completely distinct from, and unconnected to, autism. Dyslexia is a very, very obvious example. Merging them would be as daft as merging Dog with Cat on the grounds that both have four paws and are commonly kept as pets. The original article and the current trimmed article both seem reasonable starting-points for a sourceable topic that doesn't deserve deletion. Elemimele (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Article is a direct translation of the French Wikipedia article and appears to check out. What's the issue aside from the article creator? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep? The article appears to be a direct translation of the corresponding French Wikipedia entry and appears to check out. Yes the author of the article was blocked for LLM and other issues but it doesn't seem like those issues affect this specific article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any responses to Beanie's inquiry? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi03:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree with Beanie here, it doesn't seem to have any AI hallucinations or anything like that, it's just a translation. Jishara (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Ighs It actually explicitly meets both of those. Can you explain where you're drawing the notion from that it doesn't? It also satisifies secondary source requirements and breadth of coverage. The only backing you've provided for your claim is that it seems trivial, which isn't really an argument at all.
I will say (as someone who decidedly isn't one) that I think this is part of the reason why conservatives believe this site is biased against them. They have just as much history behind their movement as liberals and leftists do, and it's equally important that we explore it.
On WP:NPOL, Call has never held office, or been a member of a legislative body at that level. Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected, re-elected, election ongoing), but you could make the case for embezzlement articles meeting notability. In general (excluding that), coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject. Ighs (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It seems like half the time Wikipedia editors expect every article subject to be an A-list celebrity; people necessarily exist in their context. He was the statewide chair of one of only two major parties in the United States. NPOL doesn't actually explicitly say "government" office, it just says statewide office. Nonetheless, one line down from the one you referenced would indicate that he's a [major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage. Were you hoping for an expose on the layout of his garden? You only need 2 sources to establish notability. Even without mak[ing] the case for embezzlement meeting notability, that's still been well and over satisfied.
Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected ,re-elected, election ongoing) − Challenged by R Street, CBA-CLE, US News
coverage is...not independent of the subject - You misunderstand what that actually means, per WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Four of 15 sources are/were affiliated with Call in some manner or another. None of them, though, were used to establish notability.
Call does, however, satisfy the earlier rule on "significant coverage" − that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Keep: Coverage seems substantial, as far as I can see, meeting WP:NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Additionally, the embezzlement and other issues appear to support further. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My impetus, my muse! I've missed our chats. @Magnolia677 what's your estimate of how many state or national committees you'd have to chair before you're no longer considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL?
Keep On balance, I think the subject clears GNG. There are stories about his election as Colorado Republican chair and his disbarrment. I am not sure (politician) is the right title, however. --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd initially had it as 'party chair', but it was moved soon after.
Keep, Individual who is the subject of the article in question received significant coverage relating to disbarment in 2021 stemming from embezzlement. (AP, CBS, etc.) Individiaul also got some not significant coverage relating to an alleged illegal vote in 2011. In 2013, Individual got significant coverage from KUNC about their election to state party leadership. Also there is significant coverage from other sources online, such as this one.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Hey would you mind posting those sources in a Refideas box
({Refideas|[Url here (space in between) any name you wanna give it, at least a character here]})
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Trending towards keep, but relisting to be sure - there is no real discussion about the depth and the quality of available sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To be clear we've got 29 sources on this article now and at least 20 of them are from reliable regional or national sources discussing him directly in relation to his embezzlement case or the state GOP. I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't be considered a Keep, even if we need to strip it down to solely to a consideration of WP:GNG, which if I'm not mistaken only calls for significant sustained coverage by 2-3 reliable national or regional sources, which we have well and truly surpassed by this point, and I still have at least a dozen sources I haven't worked into the text yet. Also just so we're clear I in no way used AI to write this other than google search finding synonyms for words, so even if it's listed as such don't let that be a factor in your decision.
Like guys what is this, this has kind of gotten absurd. I'd get it if we were looking at a barely developed article with like 5 sources that only focused on his embezzlement case or minor events in the state party; I've written almost 2,000 words people, the train has left the station. Unless this is a training exercise in analyzing base principles to the point of nonsense I cannot see any reason we still need to be here. Once we've finished up, anyway, I'd figure someone on the Delete side must be able to complete its review, having looked over and considered all of the available sources to make their determination in this discussion.
Delete Using POL to show notability is rather generous, appears to have held various office positions. Getting kicked out over the theft of funds isn't quite meeting criminal notability either, appears to have a rather routine career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Every politician is just doing their job. Notability has nothing to do with whether we personally find something interesting or intriguing but whether reliable sources took note of the subject and bothered to write about it. Katzrockso (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This isn't a politician, it's an office worker that stole from their employer. Neither is notable. We have GNG, but this isn't a notable individual, is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The coverage passes the GNG. Do you disagree there are more than two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject? Did you read any of the sources? Katzrockso (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per @Oaktree b's analysis. High number of sources =/= notable, particularly when it comes to a BLP. Also, to note, an RfC on the issue of whether NPOL covers sub-national party official was snow closed with consensus against (permalink). voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Voorts @Oaktree b @Magnolia677 Can you explain what these sources actually lack? Are you guessing you need 40 sources to establish notability, or do you think more are needed? Do they all need to be book length coverage of the individual, or is it ok if it's only a small database worth of referable material? Also, do they need to be God? Genuinely what more could you people possibly demand. If you think there should be no new articles on the website you can just say that instead of dancing around the issue for the sake of posterity.
Also, @Voorts I'd caution you against viewing this as a global consensus, or previous decisions as reflecting the real median view of the community. It's equally likely that the deletionist / exclusionist crowd is simply louder than the rest; I know for a fact they're more active on every discussion board, because inclusionists are the typically ones busy writing the actual content being scrutinized[Rev. I have literally seen it with my own eyes. I know from having literally reviewed the individual user data by hand that many of the most active exclusionists' activity on the website is massively lopsided towards site discussion over actual content additions. Personally, I'm critical of that, personally, but I'm not presenting it as an objective negative. I thank User:Voorts for their contributions, but point to the fact that they are most certainly the exception over the rule, and don't think being honest about that fact is something that we need to be so critical of.]
I don't challenge consensus once its been firmly established, but importantly their wasn't a great deal of diversity in viewpoint, nor a great deal of words, expressed by the many individuals in favor of Oppose on that discussion. My point being, I don't think that you or they engaged in good faith in the discussion, or bothered to take the time to actually analyze and consider the opposing viewpoint, really it was just all of you patting each other on the back for minds that think alike. Cheer your consensus if you wish, I don't think it was an honest or accurate one.
You responded in the affirmative when I asked if you wanted an RfC. I started one at VPP. Within 24 hours, there was not a single !vote in favor. You did not !vote, although I know you were aware of the RfC because you "thanked" my edit starting it. After over 24 hours, an independent admin closed the discussion per WP:SNOW with notice that they would do so. A SNOW close at VPP rejecting a proposed change to a guideline is about as close as you can get to a global consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
TLDR:Voorts this part is broadly directed, not specific to you:
Read it or don't, I'm not gonna apologize for a long post since pretty much every piece of it is new argumentation or a response to a point raised in the in-between period. If that's something that can't be managed because you have other things to do on the website, maybe you don't actually need to do those things. The whole point of engaging with this initiative at all is to do so in good faith and to produce the most positive results possible, not to just pass by and make your opinion known and realized in as many settings as possible. Desperation to recognize WP:The deadline is now to the point of blunder or oversight is an equally indictable violation of WP:ADVOCACY. If you feel it beneath you to devote additional time to this, in the same manner as you might consign someone else to as consequence of the massive, sometimes inescapable delay of WP:ONUS, then you really shouldn't be the one performing that work to begin with, you clearly don't understand its weight or import; I firmly believe that in such cases you're doing more harm than good.
Response to Voorts
What's the point in saying anything when by the time you get home to do so there are already 12 people making the same point, and the question of whether or not the proposal qualifies for WP:SNOW is already publicly under consideration. Why bother? The earlier discussion had already pretty clearly shown that people weren't willing to engage with the points I was making in favor of pointing out why other points were more important?
If I'm just gonna have the same point spit back to me 15 times by different people like I'm the village idiot (even when I respond to the points they make, and raise additional points of contention), what's the point in believing that any of the principles of WP:CONSENSUS actually hold any sway or meaning at all?
You see the point I'm making about inclusionists? In the same instance as you told me that I needed to redact my earlier statement, you told me that I should focus on content. You think that hasn't been said to hundreds of mainspace focused editors before by people who hold the exact same views you do? Why bother getting involved in discussions in the first place, if what consensus really means at the local level is that, if a lot of people tell you you're wrong then you're wrong, even if their position is genuinely detrimentally wrong? I get it, it's not about being right, it's about being respectful, it's about respecting consensus, but my whole point is that I don't think that the principles of WP:CONSENSUS are being respected by the same people claiming I've stepped over a line, and they don't seem to care to respond to that assertion while doubling down on the notion that I'm in violation? Where do I, or anyone else go to rectify that?
You can't tell me it's not more likely that a person who is committed to reducing in broad strokes the amount of content that's automatically accepted on the website (which I'm not implying is a bad thing, though I personally believe it to be) isn't more likely to get involved with an RfC determining any question of excluding content than someone with inclusive beliefs with a particular understanding of only a few subject matters. The immediate barrier to entry for any exclusion-focused editor is having a base foundation in the site's core policies. The effective barrier to entry for the individual advocating for the content is not only an understanding of existing relevant policy, but a strong enough background in the material to meet their WP:ONUS of convincing other editors that something is necessary to include. The task is necessarily harder for those that advocate inclusion, that's built into the system. Whether you believe that's justified or not, you can't claim it doesn't have an impact on who gets involved in discussion as well, which ends up skewing the sample of editors engaged in the actual policy-making process. If enough people tell me that 2+2=5 I figure we'll have to open up an RfC to determine whether or not it's true. Once we get everyone's votes in we can make it official. At least that's how it increasingly feels. There are 30 sources on here, of high quality, from
Note: Not meant for Voorts but directed more broadly: If you can take the time to challenge me on WP:CIVILITY grounds for material that isn't actually uncivil, you have already chosen to devote your time to the task,. You necessarily have the time and are in the position to engage with the actual points made in the reply. Since you have clearly read into this post deeply enough to be able to identify those violations, any claim of a TLDR violation is unconvincing. If you're taking the time to challenge me on those grounds, just don't bother replying! I'm not gonna stop. I do that for people who respect me in discussion enough to bother answering at least some of the points I've raised. I'm not being intentionally disrespectful nor attempting to drown out anyone else in discussion by doing so, I'm reminding you of a point you've chosen to ignore. Deciding and/or explicitly stating that such arguments don't matter (in the former case by simply ignoring it) itself constitutes wikibullying anyway, so really it's just advocacy of your right not to care about a particular position in an environment where you're supposed to dedicate equal respect to all of them. There's nothing explicit about NPOV as pertains to talk, but that's about as close as you can get to what would probably be considered a violation.
I've already discussed this, but... In my mind, it comes down to showing what this person did to be worthy of an article. They were the head functionary for a political entity. Never voted into office, they were hired. They stole money from the entity. The theft might be notable, the person alone isn't. I've stated my point, please stop badgering the discussion over it. Let the process play out. If this gets deleted, or if it stays, we move on either way. I've had some article deletions I didn't agree with, but this isn't Oaktreepedia. I contribute what I can and we work together no matter what happens. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Continuing the discussion isn't badgering, its unfair of you to make no real acknowledgement of my positions apart from acknowledging that you don't need to then claim it to be badgering when I repeat it as a relevant point of consideration. I think that argument itself goes against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, which encourages you to actually engage with the arguments other editors present, instead of just holding fast to your initial position.
I'm not asking as a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know what you believe qualifies something for WP:Notability. You state that its not important in consideration of broader consensus, but you are an active and influential part of determining that consensus, you can't deny that. Everyone is. It's pretty explicitly clear at WP:BUREAUCRACY that you should not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I am not casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I am directly stating my belief that the style of reasoning that you're using here to support Oppose is antithetical to the exact same set of principles that you advocate adherence to.
Notability is not determine by how significant Oaktree b (or any individual editor) finds a person, but whether it is covered (i.e. with WP:Significant coverage) by reliable sources. You could find a subject completely mundane and unimportant (as I find just about every single article on obscure chemical compounds), but if reliable sources cover the topic, then the subject is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. NPOL is an inclusionary guideline (as are almost all of our notability guidelines). Failing one notability guideline is never a reason to delete absent the subject fails every single notability guideline. "Fails NPOL" means nothing if the subject passes the GNG (as the guideline itself has noted). The RFC, as REAL_MOUSE_IRL, is simply not relevant here. The sources provided by RightCowLeftCoast and Helpful Raccoon substantiate a pass of the GNG.Katzrockso (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that that argument is incorrect, however one bad argument for one 'side' of a discussion doesn't suddenly make the rest of the arguments worse/incorrect. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Above I believe it was Oaktree who claimed that there were sources that were not independent. There are also sources are independent but that fail verification: I found many statements that cannot be found in the cited sources, and cannot claim that I found them all. For instance: The second paragraph under "Views, roles and positions" is all about Call's response to the Hispanic community, but of the two cited refs, one (KUNC) is very short and does not mention any of this, and the other, USnews, says only this: Once led by nativists like Tancredo, the state party is now being shepherded by people like chairman Ryan Call, a fluent Spanish-speaker with ties to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and an eye for ways to engage a constituency he admits GOP national leaders have left behind. That's it, and yet there is a whole paragraph that goes into detail that is not in the sources cited. The last sentence of the first paragraph under "Personal life" says something that is not in any of the sources. The entire second paragraph also makes claims that are not found in any legitimate sources. Of the sources that SHOULD NOT be used are: - the National lawyers ass'n - the Colorado Republican Party - Open Secrets (cannot validate his employment, that info comes from him) - his bio at Colorado GOP headquarters (not independent, probably written or approved by him). When all of the un-sourced info and anything linked to non-reliable sources is done, what seems to remain is the story of his embezzlement. It's not nearly a significant enough crime to meet NCRIME. I am chagrined that so much of this article is unverifiable, but because it is unverifiable it definitely violates BLP. I am also chagrined because an article like this that does not follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing creates a lot of work for others. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: There are three claims for notability raised in this discussion:
Automatic notability as a US state party chair under WP:NPOL: This was recently discussed and most editors in the discussion said no.
Notability for alleged crimes: WP:CRIME states the perpetrator must be a renowned national or international figure, or it is a well-documented historic event. Neither case applies here. The crime is not particularly unusual.
@Dz5t 8O12 The subject qualifies for NPOL on account of the fact that they're a [major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage. Not sure where others are getting the notion from that the RfC somehow negates that.
I think some editors see that as just pointing to the GNG, so rather than really qualifying under NPOL, it would be the GNG. I can read it both ways.😐 Katzrockso (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: I was concerned by what Lamona flagged, so I picked several paragraphs and went through them to cite-check the sources and had a similar experience. Most of them do support the claims for which they are cited, but the support is oftentimes vague, and the claims are oftentimes stretched beyond what the sources can reasonably justify. Here's one example. The article says: Though the candidates differed little ideologically, Baisley felt that Call's communication style was ineffective with voters, and that a change in leadership culture was necessary to reverse ground lost to Democrats in earlier elections. For that proposition, this source is cited in the following sentence, the relevant part of which says: He doesn’t disagree majorly with Ryan Call, in fact it’s been a very civil race but he does point out that he’s got a business background and he thinks the way that he engages with people is different from Ryan Call does and he thinks they need a more business oriented state chairman to run the party. He also mentions that Douglas County did well this year in terms of its elections and he thinks that he can carry that to the state level. Several responses: (1) I don't know that "doesn't disagree majorly" equates to "the candidates differed little ideologically." The article itself doesn't specify what Baisley "doesn't disagree majorly" with Call on. Ideology is one possibility, but it could be general leadership approach, which is suggested by the sentences that follow. (2) "Baisley felt that Call's communication style was ineffective with voters" isn't the same as "he [Baisley] thinks the way that he engages with people is different from Ryan Call does[.]" Again, the source isn't clear about what that means. There's no criticism of Call as "ineffective" in the source, and nor is it clear that the source is referring to voters (as opposed to, say, workers within the Republican Party or elected officials within the party). (3) "a change in leadership culture was necessary to reverse ground lost to Democrats in earlier elections" isn't the same as "he thinks they need a more business oriented state chairman to run the party." This is one paragraph, but it seems to be something repeated throughout the article. And just to show my work, the source cited here is a fairly accurate transcription of a radio interview with the only paraphrasing really just of the interviewer's questions. I listened to the interview in its entirety, and there's nothing material in the audio that isn't in the text as transcribed. PA Uploader (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm going to do a not-verified-ectomy on the article, removing content that is not in the sources, or not in independent sources. It can be reverted, so don't panic, but for me it is the only way to see the "good" that is in the article. For the most part I will be removing OR. I'll get back to you all here when I have something to show. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Lamona @PA Uploader Several of the reverts were reasonable, and I commend you for going about it in a way that matches with all the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately a lot of this was done on a little bit too little sleep and a lotta bit too many sources that I was tearing through at once. That was compounded by the fact that I was trying to further substantiate an article that was being picked apart rather aggressively here. I'll admit I tend to extrapolate more than I probably should. Will go through and pick apart some of your reverts that I know can be sourced back to something, will make sure to be thorough in the summaries.
Separately, though, I think we should note that all of the sources that I pulled from that he was previously involved in have no real reason to lie. WP:VERIFY says that "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example.. The sources he's involved in are all reputable organizations, and are thus covered by policy.
Based on policy, all of the statements that are not sourced must be removed. That eliminates the biography almost entirely. It isn't clear where that came from; I left it in because it illustrates one of the problems with the piece. The primary documents on the trial aren't ideal, but it doesn't seem to have been given much coverage in independent sources. Many of the sources are brief quotes and shouldn't be taken as, for example, statements of his policy. What my work on this told me is that this is a pretty puffed-up piece and perhaps the only notable aspect is the crime, but there isn't much about it in newspapers (I found just one source in newspapers.com) so it doesn't meet NCRIME. I'm still !voting delete. Lamona (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That's perfectly fine. I'll have a slightly longer response up shortly (trying to juggle several things at once atm), but the entire biography section that you removed is directly supported by the material in those sources. As I've stated previously, policy states that "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.. It doesn't mean that the source has to be completely removed from the subject entirely. Furthermore, self published blogs [do] not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards
That's an interesting solution. There are sources for the facts of that crime, although it would be good to avoid the court documents which I presume would be considered primary sources. Lamona (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories
