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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – The nomination relies on the WP:ROTM (Run-of-the-mill) essay, dismissing the subject as an "utterly mundane building." I have applied the exact evaluation process outlined in that essay to demonstrate that this article passes notability requirements and does not fit under ROTM.
Encyclopedic and Unusual Context: The ROTM essay asks to evaluate: "Does the written text seem to imply there is something unusual about the subject or something that may be encyclopedic?" The text clearly establishes that this is not a generic municipal office block. It is the sole physical building constructed as a direct result of a 16-million NOK national political decentralization pilot ("Pilot Statens hus") initiated by the Solberg cabinet. A project that recieved not just local / regional debate and coverage, but also a lot of national debate, involving cabinet ministers etc. If this was just a office building it would not be notable, but the political context and history around the building is notable. It is also the only building that was completed as a result of that national pilot, despite 3 other municipalities being part of it. This is part of national history, and debates around how Norway wants to preserve districts / state entities in smaller locations.
National-Level Sourcing: The essay requires editors to examine the sources to see if they come from "international, national or local sources" The article relies on national-level sources that go far beyond routine local directories. It includes extensive coverage by the national broadcaster NRK detailing the political controversy when a major state agency (Statens vegvesen) boycotted the pilot as an example. Directories are only used for basic facts like the size of the building, and involved contractors etc.
Independent Academic Evaluation: The building's co-location mandate and execution were the subject of a independent academic evaluation by Oxford Research in 2025, commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Local Government. That work was also carried out by the Støre cabinet, continuing the work of the Solberg cabinet.
WP:BORING is not a valid deletion rationale: The ROTM essay explicitly warns editors that WP:BORING is an argument to avoid, stating: "Even if the subject feels boring to you, if it's possible to write a well-sourced article, it's still notable" The nomination rationale mistakes a lack of architectural excitement for a lack of notability.
The article comfortably meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The subject has received significant, sustained, and non-routine coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources due to its national political significance, controversy, and academic evaluation. It is not "just an office building"
Previously created, draftified, and declined at Draft:APatch. Recreated; this version has no sources besides vague waves at the WP:PRIMARY documentation of the software.
This likely AI-generated article runs afoul of WP:NOLLM, through WP:AISIGNS like refers to and the use of overgeneralizations unsupported by the sources (see examples below).
The concept is closely related to ideas in behavioral economics and signaling theory, particularly the distinction between observable tasks and latent value creation. Sourced to a self-published blog post that doesn't mention behavioural economics or observable tasks.
The term "doorman fallacy" was coined and popularized by Rory Sutherland is sourced to Sutherland's own book, which cannot possibly be a reliable source for whether the book coined and popularized the term.
Recent discussions have extended the concept of the doorman fallacy to generative AI's replacement of white-collar and customer service roles. is sourced to this article, which doesn't describe "recent discussions"; it's a single opinion article that mentions the fallacy in the context of customer service and doesn't discuss white collar work.
Support a very limited merge, avoiding any LLM-generated content. I reviewed this in the new pages feed and reached the same conclusion as the nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
An article that appears to be largely AI-generated contra WP:NOLLM. It includes numerous WP:AISIGNS (examples: a term which refers to, has been critiqued when not a single critic is cited, has faced backlash from critics when only one critic is cited). While I suspect one could write a neutral, verifiable article on this essay by Russell Greene, this article is far from that. The sources do not support the claims they are used for:
The term TBLC is a parody of Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC), a concept popularized by writer Aaron Bastani. The source does not mention TBLC (and indeed predates it by six years) and doesn't say that Bastani popularized FALC, just that he authored the book by that name.
Social Security benefits now often exceed the income per year for a single individual and for a household. Completely unsupported by the source, an op-ed by George Will that per WP:RSOPINION should be attributed and not used for factual claims.
Furthermore, the "means-testing" for Medicaid long-term care has been criticized for its generous asset exemptions. This is sourced, oddly via the Free Press, to the essay where the term was coined (not independent), and the essay doesn't say that this means-testing is criticized; it is an opinion essay that directly criticizes the means-testing.
Retired millionaires, in the United States, are the largest recipient of welfare.This claim is attributed to an op-ed that in turn attributes the claim to Greene's essay, creating a citation loop.
Further, many states allow seniors to deduct property taxes, contributing to the increase in asset values, while downward pressure on younger families due to increased housing prices. Attributed to a WP:FORBESCONopinion blog that does not mention anything about property taxes or property tax deductions.
This is just the result of a spot-check. Several claims are completely unsourced. Given the likelihood of LLM involvement and the absolute failure of WP:V in this article, I believe that WP:TNT is the best path forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
A certainly AI-generated article with lots of evidence of WP:AISIGNS (example: Early company materials and press coverage describe the firm...) Even if it weren't bot output, there is no evidence of passing WP:NCORP; sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , , , ), WP:CORPTRIV (, ), and typical Nigerian news promo (same article in different sites: , ). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Commenting as author. 1 - Galle Grid Substation is the country's first-ever utility-scale battery energy storage system. 2 - 10MW is huge in Sri Lankan energy industry, we have standalone power plant articles with a much smaller nameplate capacity. 3 - Grid-connected BESS facilities have their own articles on Wikipedia. 4 - Ignoring BESS altogether (and the huge news coverage of Sri Lanka's BESS rollout), the substation is one of approximately 10 that make up the primary backbone of the national grid. Rehman14:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You haven't addressed the core issue here - how does this article meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability? Please show how it meets WP:GNG requirement to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Obi2canibe (talk)21:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
DeleteComment, I believe this to be AI-generated per the signs mentioned by Toadspike above and my previous interactions with Rehman. The sourcing is also not great and don't show SIGCOV meeting the GNG guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Toadspike and Gurkubondinn. I have now updated the article with additional references which highlights the significance of the Galle BESS. I have also courtesy pinged on WT:ENERGY so folks there can shed some light on the significance of grid-connected BESS. I also want to emphasize that this was not created with AI. Cheers, Rehman15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the new sources, nearly all have no byline – similar to WP:RSNOI and WP:RSNON, this may indicate that the article was paid or is simply a recycled press release with little to no editorial review or fact-checking. The only one that looks good is . This one has a byline, but it appears to be a one-person outfit with no editorial review , so not an RS. This still leaves us around two sources away from the GNG. Toadspike[Talk]08:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Not directly relating to the subject of this AFD, but: Newswire, Newsfirst, Independent, Daily FT, etc, are the largest/leading English-language news providers in Sri Lanka. Why they don't use bylines in their news articles is not something I can comment on. Rehman11:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Non-notable defence contractor. The sourcing falls far short of WP:NCORP. We have paid placement/sponsored/promotional content (, , , ) or press-release-based non-independent content in WP:TRADES (, , , , , ). Promotional content about an Uzbek company in a Nigerian newspaper is an obvious sign of paid placement. There is basically nothing in this article (or elsewhere per my BEFORE search) that is anything close to WP:CORPDEPTH and thus this subject fails WP:NCORP. I also suspect LLM involvement in the prose given the presence of WP:AISIGNS and the inclusion of a non-existent, never-archived reference URL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
As stated on the article's talk page, this article was created with an LLM. Per WP:NOLLM, generating articles with LLMs is not allowed. The RfC that led to NOLLM was explicit that there is no grandfathering-in of LLM-generated articles that existed before the adoption of NOLLM. There is also no provision in NOLLM to allow LLM-generated content that has been reworked by a human: generating article content with LLM is just not allowed. Einsof (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - shows many signs of AI usage, and the sourcing is AI driven too. It was arguably OK to do this at the time of initial editing. There were proper checks and balances at the time too. But WP:NOLLM has to mean something, and this is pure AI in tone and structure. For example More radical figures like her mother Endora and cousin Serena, who embody a transgressive future for witches, are often narrative obstacles to Samantha's domestic bliss, which is just AI showing off technical jargon and hardly represents good quality human summarisation. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; article was created by a NY state community college student with the assistance of AI as a course assignment. 5Q5|✉11:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: There are currently two foreign-language versions: Russian and Armenian. The Russian article appears to be human produced with more illustrations and references. Its intro paragraph is different. The Armenian article's intro translates as a word-for-word copy of this one. This English article has been saved in the Internet Archive multiple times since created, so if it is ever given another go as a title there will be a way to compare with the LLM version referenced in this AfD. 5Q5|✉11:24, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment'. The ru wiki article seems much better; it was created recently by User:Dulamas. Perhaps Dulmas would be interested in translating their article to English to replace the mess we have here right now? I could help proofread it etc.
I'm happy to delete / WP:TNT and replace it with a translation from the superior ru wiki article. Like with any class assignment, some students' work will turn out to be higher quality than others, and I'm glad for these to be evaluated based on their actual quality rather than a scattershot approach. Pharos (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This is almost certainly an ai-researched article and reads as you would expect. The list has clear WP:SYNTH problems as it says "This list compiles data from multiple international and national sources and should not be interpreted as an official ranking by a single organization." If that's the case, it is of no use to us as a list. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: This institution strongly meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:NSCHOOL. It has received significant and continuous coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, including major national dailies and regional portals. Here are the sources that establish its notability:
I am currently working on expanding the main article by integrating these reliable secondary sources. Therefore, the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted.
@Jahaza, in Nepal's eastern part, the indigenous group of the people living there are mostly "Kirat", that's a bigger and broader umbrella under which both Rai and Limbu come. So basically, they come from the same philosophy. Tradition of Rai people and Limbu people are both tradition of Kirat people. And Mundum and Mundhum, are just spelled differently but point to the same philosophy and spiritual idea. Nirvana869976 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect. The article itself says that Mundum and Mundhum are names for the same concept. I also agree with Helpful Raccoon that this is LLM and the text should therefore not be retained. M kuhner (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
Delete. Should note that the article creator's only edits that aren't this or link suggestions are mostly similar AI-generated articles about disasters in the China region, including one about the Ghost Glacier collapse in Nepal, in their sandbox. AdoTang (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
This article is very certain to be AI-generated due to multiple instances of failed verification. For example, the source for the sentences Since its inception, the PEARS procedure has been performed in several hospitals across England, demonstrating its potential as a viable treatment option. The procedure has undergone health technology appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), further validating its efficacy and safety doesn't say anything about Belgium (as it did in the version I PRODed), and the term "validate its efficacy and safety" is an exaggeration of its actual conclusion, which is that Evidence is adequate on the short-term safety and efficacy of personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) using mesh to prevent aortic root expansion and aortic dissection in people with Marfan syndrome. Evidence on long-term outcomes is limited in quantity and quality. For this claim (Clinical outcomes for PEARS have been favorable. In over 200 patient-years of follow up, there have been no untoward events related to the aortic wall or valve after PEARS. When compared with data for either the Bentall procedure or valve-sparing aortic root replacement, outcomes so far are very favorable for external support.), the source mentions 200 patient-years of followup but does not say anything about no "untoward events," nor does it mention the aortic wall. It does not make the claim that "outcomes so far are very favorable for external support" compared to the Bentall procedure (and which is a bit of a nonsense string of words anyway). It does not use the term "favorable" or "favourable" for outcomes. A non-existent DOI link in an earlier version ( is also a flag for LLM use. A PROD was contested so now AfD is the next step. While I believe this is a notable topic worthy of a human-written article, I have no interest in spending volunteer time checking every fact in this bot output and I believe WP:TNT is the appropriate response per WP:NOLLM. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
"...personalised support has now been implanted in 46 patients in three English hospitals and one Belgian hospital..."
This in any case is an old link and it has been conducted in many more hospitals in the interim. More than happy for links to be updated, in fact there is a lot more research on this topic in the time since it was published. But deleting an article of relevance because the source for one sentence is actually in the next sentence does not seem a good approach. How much of wikipedia is being deleted because of this? Tororro (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
That kind of blending of statements and sources creates an unverifiable stew of claims, and finding two whole paragraphs not supported by the citations used on them is a good reason to TNT the whole thing and start over rather than piecemeal fixing them. You've removed the items I've identified, but what I've identified is just a small sample of the article's likely problems. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment Also, this is a medical topic and thus WP:MEDRS applies. Statements that are not supported by the cited references, even if those sources do meet MEDRS, is a very big problem in an article such as this. Remember, Wikipedia is where the LLMs look things up. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is the second article connected to Antonino Cardillo which is written in a very obvious AI-style. I strongly suspect that the article is authored by somebody connected to the subject. There are two architectural magazines linked here giving sigcov, I am not an expert in that field but I suspect they may be reliable. Ordinarily I would stubbify, however, I am loath to leave an article in mainspace that may have been professionally commissioned without a declaration.
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.
This article was apparently written by AI, in violation of WP:NEWLLM. I've made attempts to do clean up and verify sources but more than one has been a dead link or possibly AI generated. I tagged them for reference, but stopped after the lead. Other sources are not reliable, for instance a blog or self published. The subject may be a notable poet, but the article should not exist in the mainspace in its current state. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
My G15 request was processed, but the article was just recreated instead by the same user. My opinion is still to delete and oppose a merge, for the same reason. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and oppose merge per gukubondinn, and the fact the the article cites no sources means, ipso facto, there is no verifiable material worthy of merging into the main article anyways. Finally, editorially speaking, anything in this article would be overly detailed and WP:UNDUE to be included in the main article.
The issue was addressed in the new version, which was completely rewritten based on the corresponding articles from previous Asian Games. I also understand that the page is considered a redirect candidate. However, other pages that follow the established structure of previous editions are also being redirected, which seems inconsistent with how these articles were structured in previous editions. Faruk6468 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment and Questioning - You all realize Karate at Asian Games has 15 medals events? Not 2. If you ONLY specifically delete Men's 67 kg division + Women's 61 kg and leave the other 13 alone - people will ask why we are singling out on deleting only two events. It's not like those two events are worse reported compared to the other 13. There has to be CONSISTENCY. Do we also think the other 13 needs to be deleted too or we have inconsistent standards applied differently to them? Btw, this event compared to other karate events in the games seem to have relative significant national and historical interests. The Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg event documents Uzbekistan's first gold medal in the games where Abdul Vakhkhob Rashidov won that event. There are secondary sources covering the winner beyond just raw data from primary sources.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Are the articles for the other events also LLM-generated? Should we be forced to keep LLM-generated articles if someone else has actually written a sister article? What does "fairness" have to do with it? ‑‑gurkubondinn00:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
There's barely any words in that article. Just raw facts. So wasn't that hard to verify. Took less than a few minutes. I made the effort here and can confirm content is fully verified in scores and rankings etc.
So this is a factually accurate article. Per WP:PRESERVE, we shouldn't be deleting articles after it has human oversight verifying all of it. We shouldn't forget the main purpose of Wikipedia is it should be an accurate place of knowledge. We don't delete accurate information once it's validated to not be factually questionable. If there is no human oversight being bothered and you guys have no interest in these topics then go delete. But I verified it and saw no facts were wrong and so cannot agree to delete after verifying - hence my comment below. If it's deleted, it will be rightly challenged and I will recreate this article. Tho I will need LLM to help teach me how to make the table ( hence a learning curve) but eventually I should be able to figure it out and I will definitely ensure all facts are correct afterwards. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and oppose deletion per WP:PRESERVE - we should not forget the point of Wikipedia. If the facts are factually accurate, the formatting of tables are acceptable - then you are only meant to clean it up or fix minor issues rather than deleting it entirely And I looked at all names, flags, points, final medalists. (I see no issues.) I looked at the overall visual charting and tables - they are acceptable and match the WP:MOS seem in other equivalent articles. I am human oversight and can verify that the article compared to all other karate articles - is consistent in quality and scope. Since the factuality is sound and the visual tables used there aligns with community standards - article should be kept and improved, not deleted on LLM concerns alone. Also we can't be inconsistent. It would look weird as if we only delete articles containing people in that weight class. But leave the other weight class events alone despite they are no different in factual quality. We shouldn't create an arbitrary gap in coverage which makes others needing to fill it.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and oppose deletion. I've come to this article slightly randomly as I've read that Dayanch Keletliyev (Daýanç Keletliýew -TKM) has been provisionally suspended due to a failed doping test. I've just looked at the official results for this event. At first glance, all the results on this article appear to tie up to the official results. Although the original of this article's creation was/may have been an LLM, it looks all OK now. After all, there is the Karate at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's kumite 67 kg which is setup in the same way and only has original sources. So this page looks fine to me and consistent with multi-sports events like this. By the way, isn't this article missing "kumite" in its name? Seaweed (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and for other subpages mass delete; Redirect to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games. Clearly fails WP:GNG as no sources exist to critically cover and analyse this one particular event, and GNG is a Wikipedia guideline, "factual", "accurate", and "consistent" are not; in fact all are highlighted in WP:ATA.
Keep: By longstanding custom we have individual pages for these events at major international athletic competitions. (There's also coverage of this individual event here: , , in addition to news sources already in the article.) I sincerely hope the nominator has done an adequate WP:BEFORE for the other pages nominated. While I believe the sourcing supports a "keep", I'll make something of an WP:IAR argument, which is that when there is a longstanding practice of having standalone pages on individual events, it is best to seek consensus at a centralized discussion point or WikiProject talk page instead of asking the community to address these pages one-by-one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The page was intentionally created as a timeline of banking in Malta.
The brief introduction introduces the subject and provides context for the timeline, directing readers to the main article on history of banking and to a scholarly source covering the wider history of banking.
All entries in the timeline were compiled from published material on the history of banking in Malta and cross-referenced against relevant sources. The individual historical facts are also referenced to their sources.
LLM-generated content isn't allowed even if it is used to create a brief introduction.
The timeline section constitutes OR because it was compiled by the author from primary sources. The problem is that it is the author who chooses which facts to include and which to omit. Vgbypw (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If there is an issue with the introduction, it can be rewritten. The fundamental issue seems to be the timeline itself. The timeline is based on an academic paper by John Consiglio (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/88410 which is considered to be the first article on the subject) and a book by Uwe Jens Rudolf (https://dokumen.pub/historical-dictionary-of-malta-153811917x-9781538119174.html). Presenting historical events in a basic chronological list should not be considered as primary research. The "research" was linking the list to all other Wikipedia pages on Malta banks and adding additional references to the events to justify their inclusion in the timeline. I don't agree that the contents of this page is original research. The discussion should rather focus on ways to improve it XonMalti (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
In the past I received feedback that some sentences did not use a formal or objective tone as per Wikipedia guidelines. So I did run the introduction through AI tools to set a more academic tone. The end result is a mix of my own writing enhanced with AI suggestions. I feel the end result still reflected the source article as well as introducing the subject. However, so far there has been no constructive feedback on how to improve the introduction.
Timeline:
The chronological entries were extracted manually, noting down the key dates whilst reading the sources mentioned above. The timeline was collated over a year and a half whilst drafting another page. Once published, the feedback received was to offload certain sections to subsidiary pages; hence, this Wikipedia page.
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Keep The topic is obviously notable. Timelines are not OR, we even have MOS:TIMELINE. The lead is indeed ORish and AI assisted, but it should be easy to clean up as the bulk of the page is a sourced timeline. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Obvious AI creation. Strange section header capitalisation, information arranged into bullet lists. The most telling sign is the sourcing format, wildly atypical from the author's easily identifiable messy usual style .
Edward Mike005 has long been a productive editor and a clear net positive. But they will be taken to WP:ANI if a second episode of AI usage is repeated. It is a block-worthy offense per WP:LLM. We are being swarmed by AI slop in the website and don't need editors not willing to put in serious effort. That is unless they can refute the allegations at this AfD. As a disclaimer, I haven't noticed the use of AI in any of their previous articles. SuperΨDro22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concern, but I would like to mention that it is not "AI slop". Not at all.
While I use AI to write drafts, the final form of the article is re-edited by me, checked by me, and published by me. No bots or anything else.
The citation style is mine. I don't know that well to add citations that are not from the websites. Regarding this article specifically, the citations are added via the visual editor. The informations from the book of Iudean I mentioned.
I appreciate your concern, but I would like to ask you not to call me 3 hours work (that is the time it took me to write the article, if I hadn't use AI it would probably have taken 3 days) "AI slop". I use AI to write a draft. But the wikilinks, sources, and corrections - because, trust me, AI gets a lot of things wrong - are done by me. I do this to save time, and, I repeat myself - I check all the information to make sure that it doesn't become "slop". I use AI to help me write the articles, but the articles are not written by AI.
Update: I was wrong, they have made use of AI before . May this AfD serve as a warning to the editor. WP:LLM states clearly the use of AI in Wikipedia is allowed only for basic copyediting and translations, both requiring subsequent human reviewing. SuperΨDro22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify: The editor made an honest attempt at an article, I'd allow this to go to draft space to be corrected and written properly. AFC can be a great tool for newer editors. I think the intention is there, perhaps the execution leaves to be desired, but I'd not "bite the newbie" over this. To be blunt, LLM is a NO GO here, but I hope the editor can learn from their mistakes and will continue to contribute. All are welcome and we need good, hardworking editors in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I apologise if my initial tone may have been excessively harsh. The editor really is a net positive. But one of the few things I think could ruin the project is the excessive use of AI. Let's keep things here authentic. SuperΨDro22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
like I said: while AI was used for the draft, the final article is corrected BY ME. I check every sentence, every word, to be factually correct, to be written correctly.
The internal links and wikizations are also made by me. And the sources as well.
I didn't told the AI to write me an article then copy paste here. I used what it wrote as a draft that I expanded, corrected, fixed.
@Edward Mike005: Please note that using AI to write first drafts isn't actually permitted, per WP:NOLLM (which is quite a strict policy, but it's the policy that the Wikipedia community has agreed on). Next time it would be better to write the article in your own words from scratch using the sources as a basis. You can use AI to help you in your research but not to generate actual wording and content. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Please don't drafity it, as it wiki observes strict guidelines against the use of LLM. While the subject of the article itself is notable, it should be rewritten. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe this article features unreliable sources and claims that have not been confirmed, as well as being written similarly to a LLM, which violates article policy Krazonyx (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article is adequately sourced, as reflected on the article's talk page, which has been reviewed and updated since the article's move to mainspace. It was reviewed and accepted from draft via the WP:AFC process on 21 September 2026, the same day this AfD was opened, indicating an independent reviewer already found it met the relevant content standards. An unsubstantiated claim about AI-assisted writing style is not a valid deletion rationale; deletion discussions are meant to focus on notability and verifiability per WP:GNG and WP:V, not on stylistic speculation. If specific sources are believed to be unreliable, I welcome them being identified so they can be addressed directly.Saji•talk11:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This nomination is weird because it doesn't explain which sources would be unreliable and which claims would be unconfirmed. Maybe it's not a great idea to try AfD after only 20 edits.
At the same time, this reply is also weird. What is reflected on the talk page? There's nothing much there about the sources. Likewise, what I told you about AI is very much substantiated - several of the sources were only linked to the root URLs of those websites or not linked at all, which is something the LLMs do, but it's inconceivable that a real editor would do it, so the use of AI was pretty obvious. You also failed to simply deny that you used AI, and have continued to handwave around that issue, which is a bit cringe at this point. --Joy (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The nominator suggests three main reasons for deletion: unreliable sources, unverified claims, and LLM-like writing, none of which are reasons for outright deletion. This seems like a matter for the talk page rather than WP:AfD. guninvalid (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This has already been addressed in detail here , it relates to a single early (July 2026) incident, disclosed and resolved at the time, unrelated to this article. Saji•talk10:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm sorry, I just don't buy that it's AI, at least based on the evidence we have. First off, automatic notability per ANYBIO, so that's not even a question. As for the sources, the one without a link was a journal which is frequently not accessed digitally, the one that went to a homepage appears to automatically do that (like certain other sources) when put through the default Wikipedia citation tool, and the way the sources were written at creation doesn't read as AI (i mean, the cite web, link - before the site name and a link instead of a source name screams the default citation tool, it does it like that all the time in my experience, especially for non-English sources). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
And you think an editor who is reviewing AI output wouldn't notice that half their links are broken? Come on now. Which isn't to say that this can't be easily cleaned up, but we shouldn't try to excuse this shoddy work and pretend all is well, rather we should simply fix it, learn from it and know better for next time. --Joy (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the section heading "Academic division of the University of Zadar" and its use in that paragraph is puzzling and suggests that the editor may have mistranslated a source, as "Academic division" seems to be the equivalent of faculty (UK) / school (US) / department, and does not stand alone. This casts doubt on whether the text has been written by a human editor who understands their sources. PamD07:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is translated and adapted from the Hungarian Wikipedia article; no such section heading exists in either this article's Hungarian source or the Croatian Wikipedia article on the subject. That section heading isn't translated from any source. I wrote it myself as an organizational heading. Happy to change it to "Department" or "Faculty" if that's clearer or more standard terminology.Saji•talk08:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sajjadmrt The fact that you used it like that suggests that you are not sufficiently familiar with English to be writing articles in en.wiki or translating articles into English. PamD13:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Plz Calm down, bro! Hold on! Translation doesn't follow a single, specific style. You can't accuse me based on just one sentence, paragraph, or subheading from the article. Besides, I went ahead and made the corrections; I even noted it in the edit summary and mentioned you: "Due to pamd's concerns in the AfD." Saji•talk20:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sajjadmrt You also stole another editor's, or other editors', work and passed it off as your own when you "wrote" this article on 19 September without any acknowledgement of it being "translated and adapted". PamD13:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This tone is not conducive to a collegial discussion. You have made personal attacks against me; per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, comments should address content, not the editor's competence or character. I'd note that my work has received support from numerous editors and reviewers throughout this process. On the attribution point: I added the translation attribution note to the talk page as soon as the section heading question raised the underlying concern this was proactive, not concealment. The article's content is accurate to its source regardless of when the attribution note was formally added. Saji•talk14:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It's proactive to own up to something three days after having done it?
And the question of attribution isn't an issue of mere accuracy, it's about a policy with legal considerations. We know it's hard to reconcile that with the modern-day AI logic, but you need to do it nevertheless.
Fundamentally, people will inevitably get annoyed when you fail to observe policies and guidelines, refuse to take responsibility, and then apparently keep wikilawyering in response. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify The creator's Keep vote here looks LLM-generated. So taking into account concerns expressed above, I think draftification is the best option for now. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
For your information, this article was accepted following revisions and moved from the draft to the main namespace. If you have a specific sentence or source in mind, please mention it here, and of course, on the article's talk page! That is all there is to it; it is a very simple process. Saji•talk19:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify: I feel quite torn by this, but I think this is the best option. Do I think the AI suspicions are credible as a standalone issue? No, they're tenuous at best - I do not buy the statement that these broken citations are unambiguously AI-generated. However, the creator has repeatedly dodged questions across a variety of forums, and has a clear history of AI use. Actually, @Sajjadmrt: can you give us a clear explanation of your reference to the article's talk page in your keep !vote?
I am also very concerned about how this page was translated and adapted from the Hungarian Wikipedia article. Take, for example, the 'Life' section of the page. The wording and order is very similar to the machine-translated Hungarian article, but the sourcing is entirely different. The English version is entirely sourced to the Croatian Biographical Lexicon (which, by the way, does not actually support most of this paragraph), but the Hungarian version is sourced mostly to this Croatian source. There is a similar pattern for the 'Career' section - wording and structure very similar to the Hungarian version, but PDF sources replaced with web ones. Why is this? Could be AI, or just sloppy verification work, but regardless, serious WP:V issues exist here. This should be draftified and extensively rewritten, so that an obviously notable topic can be covered here. Sycerion (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sycerion, I might encourage you to take a look at WP:LLMTNT, particularly point #3. While it's not an official policy, it's worth noting that there are other options besides draftification and deletion. If the topic is notable (which no one in this discussion has directly disputed, except to say that the article is itself AI), then stubbification is preferred. We would need to stubify it anyway if the principal issue is AI generation. That being said, @Sajjadmrt, please, can you give us a straight answer: did you use AI to draft this article? Yes or no. guninvalid (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@PamD: Old version?! I am surprised you are raising a question I have already answered; please check the article's history. I specifically addressed you there and explained that I had changed the wording.I was referring to the beginning of his professional teaching career.Please pass. Thanks.
You have not explained why you used a term which does not make sense in English. This suggests that you are not familiar with English. Yes, you changed it later, but how did you come to use such a strange term in the first place, and in the version you submitted to AfC? PamD13:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sycerion: Yes, that is perfectly clear. I wrote on the article's talk page regarding its translation and editing from Hungarian. Although initiating such a discussion is not a formal requirement under Wikipedia policies, there is nothing wrong with doing so; in fact, it can even be beneficial. It is helpful for a user to visit the page and wishes to assist me (and perhaps improve the article), as they will then understand how the article came to be. I am truly sorry that my action has drawn criticism. This is Wikipedia; it is only natural that an individual's writing may not necessarily be to everyone's liking.
Potentially LLM written article that's mostly just an essay about a vague and broad topic instead of an article about a well established concept. "Immigrant entrepreneurship" can be anything. Cubnorth (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep with reduction. Immigrant entrepreneurship is a widely accepted term and the subject of a substantial body of academic research. I rewrote the article in my sandbox, simplifying the prose and reducing its length by more than 50%, then replaced the live article. I also added a definition section to help clarify the concept. I believe the revised version addresses the concerns raised and is much more conducive to other editors expanding, restructuring, or rewriting the article as needed. The subject is specifically studied and tracked by organisations including the OECD, which includes a dedicated section of its International Migration Outlook 2 to the subject, and is the focus of a specific chapter in Elsevier's Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, among many other major academic publications. This is precisely the type of significant subject that Wikipedia should include. Its prominence can be quickly verified through searches of Google and JSTOR.
Wikipedia contains many obscure subjects that may legitimately warrant articles, but this is an established and important area of study that deserves inclusion because of it encompases such a broad range. The sources I have provided are all strong academic publications devoted again specifically to the subject. Even the source provided by ladmc, the German Historical Institute's Immigrant Entrepreneurship project covering immigrant entrepreneurship in American history broadly, reinforces the importance and established use of the term.
That said, although I am strongly opposed to LLM generated content, I recognise that my writing style may resonate with this issue. My writing also tends toward an essay style, which is something I have done professionally since long before AI existed and is a legitimate complaint by other editors. I am trying to work this out of my writing in general. I believe this may be partly because I develop highly polished articles. I made nearly 300 edits on Wikipedia developing this article, (not what you find in LLM generated content) and probably an equal amount of the work was done outside Wikipedia because I find it considerably easier to structure, move material around that way.
My proposed solution is the normal one for a notable subject where the article faces such concerns, that is to substantially reduce it. Over the next few days, during this discussion, I intend to shorten the prose considerably, probably by about half, while retaining as much of the existing structure and sourcing as possible.
One problem on Wikipedia is that articles can grow through incremental additions until they become sprawling and unorganised. I would like to leave this article with well developed structure but limited prose that makes it conducive to future contributions by other editors, while retaining the substantial academic sourcing that provides a foundation for future expansion. This is an approach I plan on taking in all of my future writing, limited prose with strong structure.
I want to elaborate a little more as the nominator. There is no one unique thing that ties the information in this article together except for 'immigrants can be entrepreneurs'. This means that in my opinion, that's all the article is really saying. If the observations that followed were conclusive and uniform, then I'd understand a bit more, but as it stands almost all of them boils down to 'it varies', which is obvious. I respect that this is an area of interest for you, but as it stands I believe this topic is far too broad to be a useful article. Cubnorth (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand the concern that the subject is broad, but I think that breadth is also what makes it valuable as an encyclopedia topic. Wikipedia benefits when it covers important central concepts, not just narrowly defined subjects. The study of immigrant entrepreneurship has considerable importance within sociology and social economics, which is why there is such substantial academic literature devoted to it.
The difficulty for me has been presenting the body of material without turning the article into an essay or adding my own synthesis. I could write a more cohesive argument connecting the research, but that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The article needs to be built from what the sources actually say, which can make it difficult to present the material cohesively.
At the same time, I am addressing the perception of LLM-assisted writing in the typical manner, by substantially reducing the prose and making the article more direct and source-focused. This often works against your concern, since reducing the prose can also make it harder to explain the connections among the research. I will post a rewritten version in the next few hours.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think this is a case where creative editing and restructuring can solve the problems. It would be a shame to lose an important area of study that belongs in an encyclopedia when the underlying subject and sourcing are very strong.JondeJon1 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Fairly sure this is LLM-written and I don't think it's really worth attempting to clean up. Also fairly promo but not sure if that's just the LLM or some undisclosed COI involved there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: draftify might work if someone who knows about the brand can clean it up. There do seem to be a lot of references, though I never checked their relevance. If it is just a load of COI self-promotion, then delete. —Iadmc♫talk15:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I analyzed the media sources, and it is clear that an LLM was used to generate the article (many of the sources mention this in the link ?utm_source=chatgpt.com). I verified all the sources and identified several blogs, which I removed from the article, as well as a number of PR sources that cannot currently demonstrate notability.Latitudemix (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I just declined the A7 as that does not apply IMO (courtesy @Scope creep:). While this likely did make use of LLMs, it also isn't a G15 and we could clean it up if sourcing was available, which brings me to the nomination. I'm having trouble finding sufficient sourcing to indicate he meets N:PROF or is notable as a doctor so bringing it here for discussion. StarMississippi17:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Would likely pass academic notability being the editor of the first journal listed. Seems to have an h-index in the high teens , with almost 600 citations. Probably needs a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I have qualms about that journal. Placeholder text on its website (see "newsletter"). Gmail addresses everywhere rather than institutional ones. No contact info for most of the editors at all. Issue dated March 2022 but said to have been published in September 2024. It is not on Beall's List, but those aren't hallmarks of a reputable journal. I certainly wouldn't submit a paper to it. M kuhner (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. If the only case to be made for keeping a puffed-up and likely-LLM BLP is editorship of a sketchy journal then I think we're better off deleting. WP:PROF#C8 asks for "a major well-established academic journal" which we often judge by whether we can support a standalone article on the journal; in this case the answer appears to be no. Nothing else in the article nor in his citation record looks like cause for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. Sources are WP:CORPTRIV about capital raises (, , , , , , , , ) a press release (), an affiliated source (), and a trivial mention (). I don't see anything else qualifying in my BEFORE search.
Draftify or Keep. I agree with the nominator's assessment here. None of the sources individually are significant coverage, and the sources considered together do not constitute significant coverage. That said, I think this company is significant - from a brief search, I found this article from business wire (unsure if we consider it reliable for these matters) that says this company is the First European Quantum Computing Company Listed on a Major U.S. Exchange. Improvements need to be made, but I think that it is significant enough for inclusion! Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. While the company is in the initial stages, such is the case for most quantum computing companies that are not Google or IBM or Microsoft's quantum branches. Having a PhD in quantum technologies myself, and having attended quantum engineering conferences recently where the number of mentions of IQM quantum computing was very many (tens if not a hundred). Comparing to contemporaneous QC companies such as Quantinuum (founded 2021) and IonQ (founded 2015), IQM Quantum Computers was founded in 2018. The other companies have extensive articles already. So the spirit here should be to improve this IQM article instead of deleting it. It is indeed a pioneer of the European QC company ecosystem. To support my case, I put more secondary sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and are not authored by the CEO or co-founder of the company (some initial sources in the article were indeed press releases by IQM)
Keep – Per the sources identified by Jähmefyysikko. (And edit to reduce the PROMO present in the current article.) Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC) Edit: striking this vote now that a more experienced NCORP editor has chimed in. Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Between the churnalism sourcing and the argumentum ad verecundiam, I don't see a strong case for retention presented here. Could HighKing or some of our other resident NCORP source reviewers please chime in? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎18:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Dratify. I found additional sources such as and there are probably more
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. A source analysis shows that none of the sources meet NCORP criteria although there is one I am unable to access.
Bloomberg - Finnish Quantum Startup IQM in Talks to Raise over €200 Million uses "people familiar with the matter" as the source. It's a single regurgitated sentence with no indication of independent verification, fact checking, etc. The rest of the article is a potted history. This is not "independent content", fails ORGIND.
EIB, weforum and ourcrown are company Profiles with no "independent content", fails ORGIND
This quantum start-up is breaking into an untapped market. What it means for IQM stock is an article about the topic company and Quantum computing marketplace in general, but it simply regurgitates what the company has reported and said, it does not contain any independent content, that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
Is it worth investing in quantum company IQM? This is what its business is like is paywalled and I'm unable to access it currently. Perhaps Jähmefyysikko can point to specific paragraphs and related reasoning that the content contains in-depth independent content about the company. In any event, we need multiple sources and this is the only source I was unable to access in full, so my !vote remains to Delete.
I'm happy revisit these sources if someone disagrees and to review new sources if people provide links and point to specific pages/sections/paragraphs which they believe meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 14:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep the NDTV profile in there is solid, as is the Himalaya Times piece and this Cricket Monthly piece. I'd recommend that we revert it to an older version, though - the current one has WP:AIBOLD and utilizes the * signs at multiple places, which is a pretty strong sign that it's significantly altered by AI - looks like it was during the edits on 21 January 2026, so revision to the version before that would work well Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. The issue isn't whether there are any sources mentioning Ghimire; there clearly are, Jishara. The relevant question is which sources constitute significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. The Cricket Monthly/ESPN feature appears to be the strongest source and is substantially about Ghimire, while several other results I found are primarily routine coverage of CAN events in which she is mentioned in her official capacity. I will pass this on to other editors' judgement. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Since the question raised in this AFD is WP:GNG, a 5 second google search gave me this on the first page which easily indicates she is notable enough and pass WP:GNG. I also agree with Jishara on AI . Khagendra (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't want to influence you to change your opinion, Khagendra. However, I don't think the links you shared necessarily establish WP:GNG by themselves. Some appear to be routine coverage or mentions in connection with her official roles, rather than significant independent coverage of Ghimire herself.. But I will dig deeper onto what Jishara mentioned. And again, trivial mentions or routine company coverages don't qualify a person for WP:GNG. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Routine coverage of appointments and resignations, trivial mentions and other interview pieces do not help establish notability. Keep voters should try to find sources that are completely independent of the subject. New ground, old hurdles can be considered one such source, as it provides substantial independent analysis of the subject, but the subject is still far from meeting GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
One of a number of very lengthy, possibly AI generated, articles about the work of photographer Kansuke Yamamoto . This article is about a single photograph, and basically a description of what a single author says in her book Japan's Modern Divide: The Photographs of Hiroshi Hamaya and Kansuke Yamamoto. As such, Sleepy Sea shows little sign at all of meeting WP:GNG. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – The 2013 J. Paul Getty Museum catalogue discusses Sleepy Sea in detail. Amanda Maddox compares it with Magritte's The Reckless Sleeper and discusses the compass, pocket watch and toy gun marked "Japan". She relates the photograph to Breton, its title and postwar Japan. I think that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. WP:GNG does not set a fixed number of sources; its note on sources allows for cases where one source is credible, neutral and detailed enough for a comprehensive article. Maddox's essay appeared in an edited Getty Museum catalogue. The work is also documented in the 2001 Tokyo Station Gallery catalogue and in the 2017 Japanese Surrealist Photography materials. I don't think the nomination's reference to a single author, by itself, shows that Sleepy Sea fails WP:GNG when Maddox discusses the photograph in this much detail. Fontana2026 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: Since my comment above, I have added a 2013 CNN feature by Lauren Russell to the article. It discusses Yamamoto's political photocompositions and the 1951 security treaty, then describes Sleepy Sea as a 1953 work with a toy gun marked "Japan". It also says that the title does not say what it refers to. This is secondary coverage by a different author and publication. The nomination's point that the article essentially relies on a single author therefore no longer holds. Fontana2026 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Considering the Maddox essay is in an exhibition catalogue (with a vested interest in promoting the work) and the CNN source is a photo blog, with one small paragraph describing the photo, I stand by my nomination. A bloated article of repeated descriptions and context can be simply summed up by the three lines already in the Kansuke Yamamoto article. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply. For WP:GNG, I don't think the fact that Maddox's essay is in a Getty Museum exhibition catalogue, by itself, establishes a specific vested interest in Sleepy Sea or makes the essay non-independent. Getty does not own Sleepy Sea. Maddox provides scholarly analysis of the photograph and its context. It is not promotional copy. Separately, on CNN, WP:NEWSORG notes that material from an otherwise reliable news organization can remain reliable in blog format. The CNN piece describes Sleepy Sea in a discussion of Yamamoto's political photocompositions and postwar politics. Fontana2026 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
No evidence of notability for this film production company. All sources are passing mentions. This would probably be the best source, and even then it provides virtually no direct coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Usual mix of dodgy references with no real coverage to support a redirect. Unknown really. Probably the core reason for a redirect, thinking about it. scope_creepTalk07:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
Comment The sources that may be about the company are paywalled, so it is hard to evaluate them. The reviewer declined the draft because of the product section, but I would say it is quite strong as the products are covered by the third-party outlets (unsure about reliability, however), so in principle, one can argue for the notability of the products based on the reviews. Draftification is fine, but the article is too old, so I am leaning toward deletion. Wikipedia.gptzero.me says that the page is human-written with 100% probability. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I was able to reach a few of the product article and there was some substantial coverage. What I can't verify are how independent the tech magazines are that feature them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)reply
In what regard? The bare minimum should not be enough to justify its existence without any substantial coverage or evidence, which this article is severely lacking. Most of the article reads like a collection of trivial material, editorialized statements, and over-glorified facts to promote the company and its products, none of which are notable on their own and would be WP:INHERITED notability, which is not how notability is determined for related topics. Nothing demonstrates that the company itself yields any notability independent of its products being made from some notable systems. It all around reads like a press release. —Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)19:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. The company appears to have received coverage in third-party publications, including coverage of its products. The current article may need substantial cleanup, better sourcing, and removal of promotional material, but those are editorial issues. The absence of readily available English-language sources does not by itself establish that the company lacks notability, particularly for a Portuguese company where relevant coverage may be in Portuguese.--Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What remains missing from the discussion is clearer evidence that the subject passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Otherwise the nominator's argument is untouched. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk)15:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: As the nominator, I have seen no arguments in favor of retention that have provided sufficient evidence proving that the company on its own has WP:SUSTAINED independent coverage and long-term notability, and have rather acknowledged the lack of notability from present sources. Giving this article a pass when it doesn't even meet the basic notability criteria is a bad precedent to set, and would essentially endorse and encourage incomplete and irrelevant articles to be created and kept. What is the point in having the notability criteria if we as editors are going to be so selective in its application and the basic fundamental editorial standards? I remain unconvinced by the keep arguments thus far, and do not understand why this promotional stub is being given the easy way out. There are alternatives to deletion, and should any editors feel compelled to salvage this article or prove notability in the long run, that may be done at the draft for incubation, which is where articles with unproven notability unfit for the mainspace encyclopedia are supposed to go first. This one circumvented and bypassed the entire AfC process without establishing notability first; hence this AfD. —Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs)17:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Classic proseline spammy company article. It's very telling how all three of the keep !voters above have relatively little experience and how none of them have answered the call to do a source assessment. * Pppery *it has begun...20:47, 27 September 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.
Wiki-revisor - Claude-based diagnostic assistant that checks Spanish Wikipedia articles against the Manual of Style and reports issues for human editors to fix; it does not write or rewrite article text. WIP
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
