Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Suspected AI-generated articles. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Suspected AI-generated articles|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Suspected AI-generated articles. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles/archive

watch

Suspected AI-generated articles

Bajestan Playa

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

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

Contested PROD. I suspect this may have been AI-generated per Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217#Bajestan Playa (nom). Launchballer 06:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Interspecific social behaviour in animals

Interspecific social behaviour in animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging, or redirecting to Symbiosis. This page seems largely AI generated (bulleted points, referencing Wikipedia itself) - GPTZero believes the final paragraph alone is 100% AI, which does not surprise me. The topic which it covers would easily be covered by the subject of 'Interspecific interactions', which is a redirect to Symbiosis. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 06:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete:Symbiosis already covers the topic better than this; if the article is indeed WP:LLM-generated then it could actually be speedy-deleted. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging, and the title is long and wobbly, not an ideal search term (but I wouldn't oppose a delete-then-redirect if that's what folks want: we certainly don't want to preserve the text for future resurrections). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose: Having read the symbiosis article, it is clear to me that they have very little in common. However, I take your point on the wobbliness of the title. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  I reacted too quickly. The articles do have a lot in common. I take your point. Probably if I had read this article I would not have written Interspecific interactions. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  PS. This article started out with the title ‘Pet keeping by animals’. As I got into the subject, matter I decided I didn’t like that angle, so I repositioned in a way that resulted in more overlap with Symbiosis. The overlap is not complete (eg. the Symbiosis article doesn’t discuss play, the second most important interaction for primates. Also, I didn’t see any discussion of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, the overlap is considerable. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I will describe my procedure in writing this article and let the Wikipedia community decide if it is Kosher. The article did originate from an AI-assisted draft, but I subsequent researched, expanded and sourced it. This process started out with me finding all of the fifteen references, all of which I read. I then substantially rewrote the text. I would estimate that I changed about half the words of the original draft (I did a rough text comparison). All the section titles are mine as are the bullet points (sorry GPTZERO, but you’re wrong!). The Wikipedia article cited at the top of the references section is to give credit for o the authors of the alloparenting article. This revision process took many hours and I now regard it as a team effort between me and ChatGPT. I stand by every word in this article — it contains no hallucinations. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Béatrice Cointreau

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

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. All sources are either non-independent (interviews) or passing mention of the person.

Article is created by a TA ~2026-47494-62 who submitted repeated non-notable AI-generated articles to AfC.

Also pinging @User:Jishara since they accepted the AfC 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Wine, France, and United States of America. 🍅 fx (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and likely is WP:LLM. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah - it didn't read like LLM anywhere, and the sources I checked all were real sources that supported the info, so I didn't think there was an LLM. As for notability, I accepted based on the Legion of Honor medal per WP:ANYBIO, but if that's an insufficient award I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: insufficient valid secondary sources to pass GNG. She might have a famous last name but notability is not inherited here and also, we are not LinkedIn --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC).

Spall strength

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

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

This appears to be an LLM article creation with some typical WP:AISIGNS including WP:AIDASH and WP:AITREND (As a result, spall strength research continues to evolve at the intersection of materials science, mechanics, and data-driven engineering.). See the original submission. It hasn't had any substantial edits since article creation (mostly citation clean up, link clean up, and fixing section header casing). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete or very limited merge to Spallation or Spall (as in, just the first paragraph at most). The topic is notable, but the article is too detailed for a general audience, and violates WP:NOLLM. All the sources I checked are good, but it's your classic LLM-drafted technical article: A "history" section that cites a couple of off-topic passing mentions, a grab bag of applications each sourced to a stack of primary papers, and a "current research" or similar section that reads like engineering firm PR. Yuck. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• LLM was used solely for Wikipedia formatting, not content generation. I’m not understanding your claim of over reliance on em dash use, as there is only one instance of their use in the article. Happy to concede that it gets a bit technical for a general audience, but so do many articles about niche properties (see acoustoelastic effect).
  I understand a push to merge, but looking at similar cases of a property that is behind a phenomenon (such as Fatigue limit and fatigue), makes it seem that this is not necessary. Ewint6 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NOLLM. The dab link in the first revision is also telling, I find it implausible that someone would have written the LaTeX formulae with completely correct syntax but not link [[ballistics|ballistic]] correctly. This is not enough to convince me on its own, but it is an additional sign that I considered in totality with the rest of the other signs present on the page. There are some things that lead me to believe that this is probably not a wholesale generation, but the text has clearly passed through an LLM at some point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has several concerns regarding source independence WP:RS / WP:IS, potential WP:COI, and WP:LLM-assisted editing.

Most sources appear closely connected to the subject or his teachings, with limited independent coverage to support WP:GNG. Additionally, I suggest reviewing the article history carefully. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

CCTV drain camera (plumbing)

CCTV drain camera (plumbing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Pipeline video inspection because the scope of both articles are quite similar, and this has limited scope in terms of only drainage pipes and sewer systems. Lf8u2 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: for context as to how someone (neither me nor the nominator) sorted this as a suspected AI-generated article (as the nominator did not bring it up at all): this has been tagged as such since March based on a 2024 edit that apparently must not have been cleaned up much in the intervening two years. (No opinion on that or the merge proposal.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Personalised External Aortic Root Support (PEARS)

Personalised External Aortic Root Support (PEARS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page was deleted earlier today by Crisco 1492 following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personalised external aortic root support, and an identical copy was already re-posted by the page creator and re-deleted per WP:G4. The page creator has now posted a shorter version at a page with a parenthetical disambiguator, presumably to evade detection. Since it is substantially shorter than what was deleted (although it does not include any new information), I do not know if G4 applies so am leaving it to the community; happy for an admin to G4 this if they decide it does apply. This version has a defective DOI link that is usually generated as a result of LLM assistance. Courtesy ping to the other participants in the AfD, WeirdNAnnoyed and Vanamonde93. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Suspected AI-generated articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per NOLLM and G4. In my own estimation removing content from a previous version is insufficient to exempt a recreated article from G4. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  This is a new version created today, it is not removing content from a previous version.

  Originally two of the sources in the previous page were contested, hence why i removed those two paragraphs. Tororro (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  The version you posted today had identical content except for the two paragraphs removed. The whole thing had been generated by LLMs, which is why you need to start over from scratch, not just publish the same text you used before. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I initially removed those two paragraphs as that seemed to be the issue.

  Now this version has been rewritten. Its only two paragraphs why would I generate it with an LLM? I have just rewritten the very basic description of what this procedure is. I cannot see how this is contested fact or AI generated. There are only two sources and both back up everything that is now written. It is claimed the DOI is evidence of it being generated by LLM but I have provided two valid sources taht clearly show the DOI that i cited. Tororro (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  The DOI link in the article is still broken. You didn't "rewrite" the two paragraphs. You copied them from the original version you produced that involved LLM use. If you want to write on this topic, start over with human work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not attempting to evade detection and not sure why this is implied. I am trying to establish a page so that wiki users can find out about this procedure. The DOI appears to be correct as far as I can tell. see here: https://www.optechtcs.com/article/S1522-2942(21)00035-0/fulltext

This is a widely discussed and practiced medical procedure and deleting the page is not at all helpful for wiki readers that might seek information. Tororro (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

See also here the DOI as I quoted in the article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1522294221000350 Tororro (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Your LLM messed it up, creating a fake DOI and hallucinating the wrong author list. In the article it says Golesworthy and Treasure as authors; in the actual source, the authors are Kenny, Austin, Golesworthy, Venugopal and Alphonso. We'd love to have an article on this topic written by a human, but nothing you've done thus far is human-written, and it's far too dangerous to have unreviewed LLM output about medical devices and procedures on Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOLLM, arguments in the previous AfD, and the article creator clearly just not getting it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I feel like the guy in Catch 22 who sees everything twice! PlainJane91 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

OpenAI Operator

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

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

Suspected AI generation, some content writing style is very AI. 菜國人 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. 菜國人 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge to OpenAI, specifically the section about agents. LLM-generated content can be cleaned up, so I'm not particularly concerned about that. However, given that this has been folded into OpenAI's agents feature, this content would best be suited there instead of a separate article. There is some significant coverage of the topic, but at this point I think it would be difficult to write more than a stub, so merging is probably best. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge: Could be merged to ChatGPT#Agents or OpenAI, being described as the "predecessor" to ChatGPT agents. Do not feel like the content is notable of being an entirely separate article. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 07:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Smit Machchhar

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

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

I propose this article for deletion as the pilot likely does not warrant his own page. The information contained in this article is largely covered in the article referring to the flydubai incident Tibs foxxo (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Aviation. Tibs foxxo (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of India-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E, as The Bushranger stated above. – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 22:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Given the existence of articles about pilots like John Ogonowski, and noting his heroism and the extensive coverage he received, my position is to either keep the article or move it to a draft. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect The subject's coverage is almost entirely derivative of a single current event, with no demonstrated enduring independent notability. Plus, LLM-generated content and limited verifiable bio sourcing, relevant material could be merged into the flight article. As always, Wikipdia is WP:NOTPROMOTION ~2026-51515-81 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  You do raise some good issues, however, the entirety of any potential large language model material has been removed, by myself. In addition, I've added significant verifiable material about biographical sourcing, and relevant material to the individual's early life, as well. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, per WP:SIGCOV, and Sully Sullenberger, Jeffrey Skiles, John Ogonowski, Al Haynes, Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick, among others... Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also WP:BLP1E applies here Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your thoughts. I did some work and significantly improved the article since then. Hopefully, it won't get deleted forever. . Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  thanks for your work. I am happy to contribute to this and will work through making changes. Akolamaverick (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per HRH Unicorn Dw31415 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep ~2026-52882-76 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  I concur. This is a major event in the history of aviation incidents, and the pilot(s) in question are reasonably notable. Maabonnet (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. Not only does this breach WP:BLP1E (which WP:OSE doesn't override), but also WP:NOLLM. "Public biographical details remain limited" and "He has been widely described in contemporary reporting..." is chatbot-speak. Fences&Windows 23:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good points, all, and all the chat speak has been removed. As well, biographical details are no longer limited. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E as above. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

They don't even mention it in the main article, even though it was requested in the discussion it be redirected. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The article is very new and is developing, if redirected it would be added as a target in the article. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: per WP:SIGCOV TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If the nomination is rejected, I can help to improve the article, as the subject is notable. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Multiple independent sources cover the subject, although WP:BLP1E looks relevant, the depth is too high and it's a different and unusual event which is receiving lot of coverage. Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 04:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  But LLM usage is concerning Iamcarbonmatter ♥ xoxo ✦ 04:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  I made sure that particular content was all removed and cleaned up by myself. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:NOPAGE. Information on the captain's background can be copied to the article on the flight as part of a background section if necessary, similar to here and here for example. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 05:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect Delete then redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E. The content should be deleted in that WP:NOLLM almost certainly applies (though not clearly enough for a speedy WP:G15), then a redirect re-created. WP:USUAL also applies: if and only if this pilot subsequently demonstrates notability beyond the scope of this event, an article can be re-created at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  You raise some good points, and the offending large language model content has all been removed at this point in time. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per @Iamcarbonmatter@Princessa Unicorn.passesThe individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context. These include things related to his job.(Voting Keep). Dsrprj (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks so much, I've also done further research since then to help demonstrate that and make improvements. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and United Arab Emirates. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073: The article adds northing else of notability other than details restated about the incident. Osarius 09:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep ~2026-52576-50 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-52576-50: This is an argument to avoid. Try to provide more reasoning, instead of merely voting. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073: Non-notable and BLP 1E case. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 10:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete AProtestantBoy (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  @AProtestantBoy: This is an argument to avoid. Try to provide more reasoning, instead of merely voting. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep CNN, NYT and other has published his bio including info about his family, education, flight experience, personal qualities and health condition after all. Politicians, heads of state speak of him in particular. No doubt he will get a state merit. Clarettt (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect for now – if he gains a bigger profile in the future, the redirect can always be turned back into a standalone article. Scamster (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:BLP1E OrdinariusFingius (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  @OrdinariusFingius: This is an argument to avoid. You should explain why the policy/guideline you linked makes logic and sense that explains your vote. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, oppose redirect without deletion due to LLM usage. Cubnorth (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Good points, and I took it upon myself to clean up the page and all prior potential large language model usage has been removed. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E and redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073. Avoid merging by copypasting the article due to AI-generated content per WP:NOLLM. Daddynnoob (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  You're not necessarily wrong, and the entirety of the artificial intelligence potential content is now gone and was removed and not there anymore. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per 1E, LLM usage, and lack of in-depth coverage on the pilot specficially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloblinTheGoblin (talk • contribs) 12:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  We now have in-depth coverage of the pilot, specifically, and the prior content in question is = gone. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Users who say it should be redirected to the main article on the terrorist incident should know that there is no official section discussing the heroic crew and passengers. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It is likely that he will receive some high award. In any case, we have both Sully Sullenberger and US Airways Flight 1549 articles. Here it is similar. It is still too early to decide about his notability. Wi1-ch (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  If it's too early to decide his notability, then the article should be deleted, not kept. Mlb96 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirect for now I agree with alot of the "keep votes" but we need to wait untill that happens, a person is not notable at a current point in time just because they might get a medal in the future. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep article but edit it as per record it act of attack and pilot main character of it so no wrong in keeping it as already exist like this ~2026-52640-55 (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Only known for Flydubai Flight 1073. Zalaraz (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I feel like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I agree it could potentially have independent enduring significance like John Ogonowski. However, given what we currently know about Flydubai Flight 1073, the coverage about specifically this pilot is not enough to warrant its own page. Squid45 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Zimbabweed (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Zimbabweed: This is an argument to avoid. Try to provide more reasoning, instead of merely voting. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E, I think this deserves at least some type of mention for now but the article would have to be majorly rewritten because of LLM usage. Otherwise topic isn't notable and does not warrant an article yet. --Justcgi (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  You are correct, and the entire article was rewritten, by myself, due to the prior potential of large language model usage. That is now gone. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect Classic case of BLP1E, doesn't qualifies for Sully's stature yet, too soon .Accesscrawl (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - why does this article have a deletion nomination and Yaniv Hayon does not? If this article is to be redirected to Flydubai Flight 1073, so should Hayon's article. Kindly keep Wikipedia free from bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wester2 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  It's snowing here, so I've boldly redirected Hayon's article. But in any case, other stuff exists is not a valid keep rationale. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is so unbiased that even Bias in Wikipedia has itself been redirected to Wikipedia! Sorry I'm digressing from the discussion Wester2 (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep ~2026-52950-87 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-52950-87: This is an argument to avoid. You should provide an in-depth reasoning why this article shouldn't be deleted. Simply saying "keep" and calling it a day won't possibly change the outcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073.codelivid 15:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - the precedent for similar pilots having pages (as seen above) is compelling so this should be followed rather than broken. Either this needs to be made a general policy or this page should be kept. Ftrhi (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Sullenberger has tons of SIGCOV (like literally a blockbuster Hollywood movie where Tom Hanks plays him) that is not directly news coverage of the actual event. As of now, this is not the case for Machchhar. Mausfield (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  This is easily going to be made into a Bollywood movie at the minimum. Sully is a hero who landed safely in the Hudson due to mechanical failure. Smit saved 174 lives by preventing a terrorist attack. Nkulasingham (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I wish I could edit this, but I didn't mean to lessen Sully's achievement - Sully saved 155 lives that day. Nkulasingham (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:BLP1E, no merge as it looks very LLMish. He will likely independently reach SIGCOV in the near future with some kind of influencer career or whatnot but clearly that is not the case now Mausfield (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Anything remotely resembling large language model usage is now gone. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I re-wrote the entire article and removed prior influence that had been concerning as commented on by prior editors. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: Ah, this was already resolved previously, and echoed by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), here . Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The blockbuster Hollywood film is only a couple of days away at most. Ericoides (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, BLP1E applies. GiantSnowman 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect This person is notable to an extent, but I think that for now just having him in a section of the main article makes sense. If he ends up doing more things in the future that increase his notability on his own, like writing a autobiography, that would more justify a stand alone article. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS (namely point 3 "Who's who", which is very similar to BLP1E). News may cover his background but politicians and heads of state praising him as a "hero" does not change the fact that he is only notable for this single event, and there is ultimately not much additional notable information from the main article, most of it about the incident itself; any relevant career history and the status of his recovery can be added there.

I believe it is too soon for him to receive a separate article under the assumption of further coverage and post-crash fame like Al Haynes, and the earlier referenced pilots/passengers of US Airways Flight 1549 and the 9/11 hijackings which themselves are much more significant incidents that continue to be referenced to this day. Plus, his role in the incident itself is actually not as significant as these examples since he was incapacitated after fighting against the first officer and opening the cockpit door, and it was other passengers and off-duty pilots who regained control of the plane. –Sonicwave ^talk 18:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with Flydubai Flight 1073 and Redirect Just as the reasons above, the current informations on the page isn't warrant for an independent page - apart from the aviation incident part, while the rest of the contents can simply be merged with the incident article. Once we have more information that suggesting the pliot deserve his page, we can write a new article all over again.

Awdqmb (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect There's not a single reference on the page dated before 30 September, and the possibility of him someday receiving more notoriety doesn't make up for the lack of current coverage independent of the event. Tuirse (talk ☘︎) 18:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps in the future, Machchhar will hold an important position in the aviation industry or become a philanthropist; however, I feel that the English Wikipedia is being too hasty in wanting to delete the entry for someone who achieved something remarkable. Fortunately, the article is being expanded into other languages ​​where the feat is recognized. I believe the article should be moved to a draft and we should see what happens in 60 days. I checked the main article again, and the short BLP biography does not appear there. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge with existing article. Great achievement (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe we should actually keep it. To honor such a brave and strong captain, does need some recognition. But we should only keep it if he agrees to. FlyArc350 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Cubnorth (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

just add to existing article lah. Great achievement (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with existing article. Not enough info for a whole independent article, but this person's life and story obviously can't be ignored on Wikipedia. ~2026-51187-32 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Wi1-ch. Cheromaniii (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: Front page at The Wall Street Journal, significant coverage:
  • Pokharel, Krishna; Hassan, Aakash, "The 38-Year-Old Captain Who Fought Off Cockpit Attack on FlyDubai Flight - Smit Machchhar is hailed for his heroism after being stabbed on Flight 1073", The Wall Street Journal, retrieved 1 October 2026

Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks, User:Princessa Unicorn, for providing good context for the article; little by little, it seems to be becoming notable and encyclopedic. ~2026-52914-02 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Reply: Thanks very much for your kind words. That is most appreciated!!! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Princessa Unicorn. MaeseLeon (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against recreating the article if he continues to receive news coverage. We need some WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE before he can be considered notable. The other individuals mentioned above by Princessa Unicorn continued to receive coverage for years; this incident occurred yesterday. Mlb96 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep Thanks to User:Princessa Unicorn's work, none of the initial AI-generated content remains and now contains substantial biographical beyond just the Flydubai incident. WP:HEY applies. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind words, that is most appreciated. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep, see other examples of similar incidents such as Ahmed Al-Ahmed (Bondi Beach shooting) AgentBlueberryPie (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with you, can have two notable topics within the same larger topic. Thanks so much, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ironically, the Ahmed Al-Ahmed (Bondi Beach shooting) page got taken down after posting this--or maybe it's temporarily down? Very interesting timing! AgentBlueberryPie (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Off-topic here, but FYI it didn't get "taken down", it was just draftified, i.e. moved to Draft:Ahmed Al-Ahmed (Bondi Beach shooting). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep it. He is a great person who serves humanity. Kartikapu (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:BLP1E as in "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" regardless of how much coverage there is. Sonicwave32's comment more or less sums it up. FreeSkyBirdie (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'll update my !vote to keep since it'd appear the threshold for point 3 under WP:BLP1E is (un)met rather than it beyond any initial breaking news blitz and general attention. FreeSkyBirdie (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Stumbled upon this via redirect and saw the AfD banner. Keep, absolutely. It easily passes WP:GNG, and other policies. Heavy international media coverage plus remarks from multiple heads of state make this a clear keep. Anabhibhuta (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for your astute analysis. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep - there is overwhelmingly major news as per WP:SIGCOV - it is unlikely he's going to be remembered for only one event considering he is still alive and is already being hailed as a Hero by India and Israel. So eventually you will see articles of the awards he gets. Nkulasingham (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully we have begun to reflet the significant coverage, in the article, after our improvement upon it recently post this deletion nomination starting. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per others Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The case of John Ogonowski and other such pilots. Kelvin (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect: Clear case of WP:RECENTISM. Of course, there would be plenty of sources because it is currently a news. It is WP:TOOEARLY to assess his notability at this stage. It may also fail WP:ONEEVENT. For now, redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073.--Teegarden's Star b (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073: The subject is notable for only one event (Per WP:BLP1E), but there is news coverage connecting them to the event (Flydubai Flight 1073). BSH🌸 (talk) - (she/her) 11:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: it is pretty clear at this point, based on the international investigations and comments by world leaders, that the event is significant. Extensive coverage clearly indicates that Machchhar played a significant and well-documented role in it. WP:BLP1E (namely the third condition) no longer seems to apply. The article is a much more complete biography now that Princessa Unicorn and others have improved it, so it is no longer a WP:NOLLM violation either. I agree with Ca that WP:HEY applies. KikiFur (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, KikiFur, so much, for your kind words acknowledging the work put into this article to improve it further. I'm glad you feel the article now reflects the extensive coverage and significant discussion in sources. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The case is notable and well prominent. I don't see a reason why it needs to be deleted. --cyrfaw (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: 1) As the objectionable LLM-generated text has been removed, 2) Smit has been praised by the heads of government of two countries and 3) It is highly likely that Smit will be awarded by one or more honours to commemorate his actions,
  The article qualifies for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLLM and I suggest keeping it; or drafting it if issues still remain in the article. Further edits can improve the article per WP:HEY. Would also like to thank @Princessa Unicorn for their efforts to improve the content of the article. SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, SomePacifisticGuy, for your kind words about my efforts to improve the content of this article. It's greatly appreciated. I agree with you that it qualifies for significant coverage at this point in time. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Although I do agree with the aspect of WP:BLP1E, the amount of Significant independent coverage Smit Machchhar has got, like Reuters, BBC, CNN, The Hindu and others, Im inclined to place a Weak Keep for now. BengalMC ^talk 14:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep : this person, and his life away from this incident, now has significant coverage in major international media of multiple countries. Also now meets the general notability guideline. We have articles on a guy who started a garage band and did a couple of concerts that got very local media coverage; Smit Machachhar clearly meets a much higher standard for a notable-person BLP. N2e (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The third condition that needs to be also met as per WP:BLP1E to not suffice for an article on Wikipedia states as follows:

The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

The event, however, is significant and the individual's role in the event is also substantial, as elaborated by the Flydubai Flight 1073 article. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep He has continuously received significant international coverage and recognition for his actions from independent news sources. This level of coverage appears to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability criteria for a standalone article.Oppwerhrz (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep As just above - Skysmith (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• New update: Awarded Honour, by the Government of Gujarat, per cited sources including:
  • Anwer, Laraib (1 October 2026), "Gujarat announces award for flydubai pilot Smit Machchhar in honour of his 'bravery'", Khaleej Times, retrieved 2 October 2026
  • Mahajan, Trishta (1 October 2026), "'Indomitable bravery': Indian flydubai pilot Smit Machchhar to be awarded 'Visisht Gujarat Garima Award'", The Times of India, retrieved 2 October 2026
  • "Flydubai stabbing incident: Pilot Machchhar to be honoured with 'Visisht Gujarat Garima Award'", The Economic Times, 1 October 2026, retrieved 2 October 2026

Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The pilot is a notable personality who has been commended by various head of states alongwith preventing a major loss of life. ~2026-38295-91 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep. After all, in fact, now it even seems to safely remove the templates for deletion, for this article does suitably meet the notability criteria, i.e., of WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV; thus, it does eclipse the thresholds of WP:BLP1E & WP:CFORK! Marlena3032 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this has broken the BLP1E threshold. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks so much, Guettarda, I would tend to agree with you. Particularly with regard to further developments, as noted, above, and a 2nd honour requested:

  The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) wrote to Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi in a letter from 2 October 2026, requesting Machchhar be given a National Bravery Award.

  • "'Extraordinary courage': Pilot body writes to PMO, seeks national bravery award for Flydubai pilot Smit", The Statesman, 2 October 2026, retrieved 2 October 2026
  • "Pilots' body seeks National Bravery Award for flydubai captain attacked by co-pilot mid-flight - Federation of Indian Pilots says Captain Smit Machchhar kept control despite injuries and safely diverted the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight to Saudi Arabia", The New Indian Express, 2 October 2026, retrieved 2 October 2026
  • "Pilots' body urges PM Modi to give flydubai captain Smit Machchhar a bravery award for saving 182 lives - The pilots' body described Smit Machchhar's actions during the flydubai incident as an act of "extraordinary courage, and exemplary devotion to duty"", Hindustan Times, 2 October 2026, retrieved 2 October 2026

  Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Not it hasn’t. He’s still only notable for one event.Tvx1 22:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, John Ogonowski is also known for a single event; in fact, he was even honored posthumously. ~2026-53254-77 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, than maybe his article should also be deleted. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF.Tvx1 22:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect. Clear case of WP:BLP1E and also WP:CFORK. The point of discussion is not whether this person should be covered on Wikipedia in any way but whether a standalone article for him is warranted. And the answer to that is a clearly no. There is no significant information regarding this person that cannot be adequatly covered in the article on the event. And that is something none of the keep !voters have adressed.Tvx1 22:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:CFORK: "Most types of content forks are acceptable". This is neither a POV fork nor a "page of the same type on the same subject", so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

  Plenty of votes, including my own, have addressed WP:BLP1E. All three conditions must be met, and there is a decent argument that the third one is not met in this case.

  ~50% of the article in its current form contains information that would not be suitable for the article on the event, including his early life and career. This has also been addressed by a plenty of votes, again including my own. KikiFur (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  But the early life and career sections are largely trivial and seem to be full of fluff to try and pad out the article. Anything noteworthy can be covered in the main article. Cubnorth (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  It is hurtful to hear this bad faith comment about the early life and career of this living person. Certainly, I'm attempting to carry out research and find information in cited sources in good faith. I agree with KikiFur that there is good information here that should remain in this article and would be overweighted if duplicated in the article about the air incident, itself. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  An observation and opinion is not a bad faith comment. I appreciate the work that you're doing, but in my opinion, it feels like there's a view of more = better in this article, which is not necessarily the case when it comes to notability. A lot of the information does not appear relevant, and relies heavily on trivia and excessive quotations. Cubnorth (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Respectfully and strongly disagree. But I also thank you for your appreciation of the good faith work I am doing to improve this article with referenced sources. Thank you. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. First, I think he already passes per WP:GNG based on the coverage. Secondly, he passes even per WP:BLP1E. According to WP:BLP1E, 3 conditions should be satisfied to avoid having the page about the person. 3rd condition: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. But this is exactly such a case here. The role of this pilot was central and well-documented in the event: while being badly injured, he unlocked the cockpit door, which saved all the passengers and the crew. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Although the pilot may now be famous for a one-off incident of this nature, its his heroic act to save the pilots in the Flydubai Flight 1073 that warrants him becoming a notable personality in aviation fraternity. Hence I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. There are numerous examples on pilots having their own mainspace Wikipedia article including the likes of Abhinandan Varthaman, and Indian pilot who was captured by Pakistan during the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. Abishe (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

There is also the case of Patrick Argüello and Leila Khaled and the attempted hijacking during the Dawson's Field hijackings; the identity of the Omani attacker is gradually coming to light, so I believe Smit Machchhar is becoming a significant figure two days after the incident. ~2026-53150-74 (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 as subject is known only for being quickly incapacitated during a WP:BLP1E; everything else in the article is run of the mill and non-notable. Celjski Grad (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. He has received, and is continuing to receive, extensive international coverage. His role in a major event was substantial and well documented (1E criteria). MB2437 09:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Statens hus

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

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

Utterly mundane building - it does not get any more run-of-the-mill than this. Geschichte (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Norway. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:34, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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"

Nordfjording (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesnt meet WP:NBUILDING. Most likely also fails NOLLM, see WP:AIN § User:Nordfjording. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

APatch

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

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

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.

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources to be found. The previous draft referenced a forum post, WP:BEFORE finds only forum posts and self-published blogs. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete, there are a few mentions in WP:RS (, ) but nothing rising to the level of significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that first source is a self-published ebook - Gbooks gives publisher as author, and it also reads to be LLM generated. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Good point Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I've also re-formatted the article. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.The editor also appears to use LLMs in all of their article creations. AriuCH (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete – the article has no citations; the links are the project's own site, GitHub and a personal blog (WP:V, WP:NSOFT). Kukuryza (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Doorman fallacy

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

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

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.

It might be possible to write an encyclopedic article on this concept, but given the failures of WP:NOLLM and WP:V in this short article, the best approach is to start over, which we can do by restoring a redirect to Rory Sutherland (advertising executive)#Doorman fallacy pending the writing of a verifiable, reliably sourced article on the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Economics, and Suspected AI-generated articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of South Africa

Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to South Africa–European Union relations because due to WP:OVERLAP and it seems that a sizable portion may be WP:LLM generated. Kat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, South Africa, and Europe. Kat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support the article has a single sentence about the delegation and the rest covers RSA–EU relations. Samoasambia ✎ 10:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Total Boomer Luxury Communism

Total Boomer Luxury Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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:FORBESCON opinion 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage of the phrase itself outside of Greene. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOLLM and just plain WP:N, since few if any independent sources could be found. If every half-baked term introduced in a highbrow thinkpiece got an article, we would be KnowYourMeme. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Abna Dakwa Village

Abna Dakwa Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

LLM-generated article about a minor philanthropic project that uses the WP:BUZZWORD "development" instead of village (no information about governance) and could at best be a sentence added to MrBeast#Beast Philanthropy. Strong evidence of LLM generation. Boud (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Ghana. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Cinemax Distribution

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

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

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Nigeria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – a company founded in 2023 sourced to launch and award notices, two Instagram posts, and the same write-up reprinted in two outlets; WP:NCORP is not met. Kukuryza (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Galle Grid Substation

Galle Grid Substation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As WP:NBUILDING, infrastructure assets have no inherent notability. Sources don't provide significant coverage of subject to meet WP:GNG - they merely mention it in passing rather providing in-depth coverage. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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. Rehman 14:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• I've just pulled autopatrolled from Rehman for this article, which the WP:AIREDCAT (since helpfully fixed by @User:Bearcat) suggests is yet another WP:NOLLM violation, after they were previously warned repeatedly about Electricity Generation Lanka. That aside, this article currently cites an uncredited press release, a promotional news article without a byline, and a promotional opinion piece by Gagan Bulathsinghala, a Sri Lankan government official. None of these meet the bar of counting towards the general notability guideline, so I have to !vote to delete. Toadspike [Talk] 13:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Comment, 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. ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  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, Rehman 15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  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. Rehman 11:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Witches in popular culture

Witches in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Film, Magic, Music, Television, Video games, Paranormal, and Popular culture. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOLLM. ScalarFactor (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per NOLLM. Needs to be rewritten entirely without LLM use, although the sources may be useful (assuming there's no hallucinations). In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 22:01, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Clear WP:NOLLM violation. AI generated articles are not acceptable. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete: As the user who brought up this and other articles up at WP:AIN#GenAI college course from Spring 2025, I think all the articles that came out of this course should be deleted, regardless of whatever the instructor says. Very clear violations of WP:NOLLM. Lazman321 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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.

Additionally, the talk page comment suggests this was created as part of a educaitonal project led by User:Doctorxgc which seems to be heavily reliant on AI generated content. If we think this article is not acceptable, the others at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/CUNY-LaGuardia CC/ENG103 (Spring) may need reviewing, as well as content created by other courses led by this instructor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

I'm a bit more hectic nowadays, but I'm willing to pitch in as needed with locating sourcing and all of that good stuff. I've a copy of Grande Dame Guignol Cinema, which has some coverage of witches since there's some definite overlap with those themes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:36, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete obviously, this fails NOLLM and the LLMPROD tag should not have been removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

List of countries by displaced population hosted

List of countries by displaced population hosted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Suspected AI-generated articles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 17:53, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete More WP:OR/WP:SYNTH related to the previous nomination for List of countries by estimated irregular migrant population. Nathannah • 📮 19:24, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Sources don't show how the topic is notable. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Arpara Government Ideal High School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arpara Government Ideal High School
• Articles for deletion/Arpara Government Ideal High School (2nd nomination)

Arpara Government Ideal High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per previous AfD. Secondary school with no SIGCOV and failing WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Unilaterally recreated after consensus was reached to redirect. Kisseran (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Kisseran (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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:

* Coverage in Prothom Alo (Top National Daily):
  The school was featured in Prothom Alo highlighting the remarkable academic success of its former student, Priyanti Mandal, who secured the first position in the Dhaka University 'Kha' unit admission test. (Link: https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/district/bnr595c9j4?).
  Additionally, Prothom Alo covered the educational experiences of a current student from this school regarding the government's "One Day One Word" learning initiative. (Link: https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/district/ufqz7tyxv1?)
* National Level Competition Champion:
  The school became the champion in the debate competition organized by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in 2026. This significant achievement was covered by the national English daily The Independent. (Link: https://theindependent.com.bd/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%89/?)
* Host for Regional Events & Local News Coverage:
  The school regularly serves as a central venue for significant regional events, such as the Upazila Science and Technology Fair (covered by Magura Protidin) and the National Primary Education Medal competition (covered by Ekushey Sangbad). Furthermore, its annual sports, cultural events, and farewell ceremonies have been well-documented by regional news portals like Daily Sokaler Somoy and Daily Ekota. (Links: https://maguraprotidin.com/%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9E%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8-%E0%A6%93-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%AF%E0%A7%81/? , https://www.dailysokalersomoy.com/news/144602)
* Official Examination Center:
  It is a government-designated center for the Junior Scholarship Examination under the Jashore Education Board, managing hundreds of examinees, as reported by The Daily Campus and Jugantor. (Link: https://english.thedailycampus.com/school/1027?)

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.

B.M.Taskin BD (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Earlier I favoured redirect, but if it's going to be a magnet for disruptive editing, just delete it. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete; this is AI-generated, does not meet NSCHOOL, and was recreated in spite of the previous AfD outcome. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Secondary school with no SIGCOV. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

House of Dust (architecture)

House of Dust (architecture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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.

My view is delete, although I can see the value of stubbifying as there is a high possibility WP:GNG has been met. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Stubify - GNG has been met, but AI seems to be present. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: As the principal reason for this thread was to gain perspective of other users, if no other comments are forthcoming in this relisting period, I would be happy to accept Jishara's opinion that stubbifying is the best way forward.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hello @Jishara, I found this article:https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/specification/house-of-dust-rome-by-antonino-cardillo-architect

  and this:https://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/05/house-of-dust-by-antonino-cardillo/ ~2026-52864-32 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hi! Thanks for pointing those out, they support that GNG has been met. However, if the article was made with AI, it does still need to be stubified. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Kurukh phonology

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

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

page created using AI from the start, violation of WP:NEWLLM scope_creep^Talk 05:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, India, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal, and Suspected AI-generated articles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft deletion due to previous PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I'm quite familiar with phonology, so I'll go see now if I can rewrite the article from the sources given. Wreaderick (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg

Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games because the Men's 67 kg division does not appear to meet general notability guidelines independently, and the article in question consists only of a bracket and an incomplete table. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related AfD discussions. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete this because it fails WP:NOLLM, there is a chatbot block and a specific byte sequence (described in WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0) in AbuseLog/45189994. Also oppose merge because we should not merge LLM-generated material into existing articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  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. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Asia, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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.

LkL-70547 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there a way to make a WP:BUNDLE out of all the Karate at the 2026 Asian Games sub-articles? All of them seem delete-worthy. LkL-70547 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  We could implement WP:FIXBUNDLE with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's 61 kg, I am not sure about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Women's 68 kg as there were replies in favor of merging, and now it looks like some of the others have been merged, although I am not sure if any LLM concerns need to be addressed. If we suspect LLM use, then AINB followed by LLMPROD might be an option also, but I would like to hear from the author on that (going to leave a talk note to help us stay on topic). ASUKITE 14:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and oppose merge - Aside from the LLM, the article does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT and the only part of the article worth merging is the medal winners which are already in Karate at the 2026 Asian Games. --John B123 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Redirect to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games. The subject does not have standalone notability as evidenced by a lack of SIGCOV. The only content worth merging is already present at the target article. Frank Anchor 15:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  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? ‑‑gurkubondinn 00:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  Keep and oppose deletion fully agreed Yikesaiting (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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.

LkL-70547 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG doesn't require an article to be long or have "critical coverage". It requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is now substantial independent international coverage of this event including and not limited to; Also as another pointed out, there is also additional reporting on a doping case in that event, which has now been added to notes.

You previously voted above for Delete on the basis the article has no sources. However, that is no longer true. And "Clearly fails WP:GNG" isn't supported by available sourcing. Even if did fail (arguable), WP:GNG is a notability guideline, not an automatic instruction to delete whenever and other factors should be considered like that standalone articles have reader value as they provide a focused and easier-to-read account of the event. I do agree with below that whether we continue the long standing practise of standalone articles for events - requires broad discussion and proper final consensus, rather than potentially deleting 1000+ of equivalent articles based on the consensus of a few. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, given this is clearly WP:1AM, I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK for now. It's surprising that the WP:COVERAGE requirement at WP:NEVENT is stricter than WP:GNG - but I am aware that it does not override GNG. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  Support having a centralised discussion somewhere, this is probably even beyond WP:BUNDLE as these articles are all over the place. As for the sources in this case in particular, I don't see them passing WP:COVERAGE: they are not WP:INDEPTH (routine short articles), very unlikely to have WP:PERSISTENCE, and arguably not WP:DIVERSE as none of them have a unique angle on the story. LkL-70547 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep You all realise for Karate alone there are, as of now, 88 similar articles in Category:Karate at the Asian Games? Same for all other sports represented in the Asian Games, with different amounts of articles (just take a look at Category:Shooting at the 2006 Asian Games). This PetScan would need more fine tuning, but the numbers are easily 1000+ for this kind of results page. It seems to be consensus to accept them, so why discuss the deletion of one such article with an argument that either fits for (nearly) all articles or none? I don't think this is the way. - Squasher (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

History of banking in Malta

History of banking in Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The introduction appears to be LLM-generated, while the Timeline is WP:OR. Vgbypw (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

Therefore, there should be specific identification of the entries considered to constitute original research. XonMalti (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Did you use AI to write the page? Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Introduction:

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.

Conclusion

The bulk of the page text was not written using AI. XonMalti (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLM for responses. See WP:AITALK. – The Grid (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't read like an LLM response to me. Pangram and GPTZero both label this as human-written. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They admitted to using LLM in the text. AI detection isn't 100% perfect. (who separates their response into three subheadings?) – The Grid (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They omitted a colon after "Conclusion", did not use Markdown, and directly admitted AI use (LLMs usually try to be evasive). Kelob2678 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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.

Logs: 2026-09 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Some of the articles have been rewritten and I believe all concerns have been addressed or clarified XonMalti (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  WP:TNT applies for stuff like this regardless of notability. – The Grid (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The introduction was amended so the AI issue should have been addressed.

Happy to see that topic is considered notable and the timeline is adequately referenced.

So are there any remaining issues in the current page version? XonMalti (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Romanian Moderate Party

Romanian Moderate Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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. Super Ψ Dro 22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Hungary, and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  hello!

  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.

  Also, I saw the bullet lists, but I decided to keep it because it make it easier for the viewer to read. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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. Super Ψ Dro 22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

read my previous answer.

Also, I do NOT use AI for the citations. The citations are added via the visual editor. Edward Mike005 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

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. Super Ψ Dro 22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

I decided to keep the bullet points because they are easy to be read by an average user. Edward Mike005 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

Nevenka Košutić Brozović

Nevenka Košutić Brozović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Krazonyx (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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 • talk 11:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

Besides the nonsensical reference to the article's talk page, Sajjadmrt's comment above displays WP:AIWANTFEEDBACK, WP:AIUNPROVEN. —BrechtBro (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I accepted this article through WP:AfC because the Croatian Biographical Lexicon source satisfies WP:ANYBIO#3. The article content also looks fine in my opinion. guninvalid (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Krazonyx, generally speaking, unless the topic itself is plainly nonnotable, an alternative to deletion is generally preferred. WP:AfDs are expensive and should generally be avoided when cheaper options, including the talk page, a third opinion, speedy deletion, or proposed deletion would suffice. guninvalid (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify Shouldn't have been accepted back through AfC given the LLM and accompanying V concerns, though there's no fault by the reviewer due to the lack of clear comment or LLM tag at the time. See also WP:AIN#User:Sajjadmrt —BrechtBro (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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 • talk 10:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. PamD 07:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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 • talk 08:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@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. PamD 13:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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 • talk 20:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

@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". PamD 13:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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 • talk 14:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Draftify - assuming good faith, I just think that this needs more copy editing before it's ready as an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  Needing copy edits is not a reason to decline a draft article. Every article on Wikipedia could do with more copy edits, always. All articles on Wikipedia are a work in progress, including this one. guninvalid (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  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 • talk 19:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)

To give you a clear and direct answer,:@Guninvalid:: I did not use AI, I have no need for it. neither during the drafting stage nor when translating the article. Saji • talk 06:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. guninvalid (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sajjadmrt Could you explain what you meant by "Academic division of the University of Zadar" in section heading and text in the article as you created it? Thanks. PamD 08:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@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.

Saji • talk 08:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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? PamD 13:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not a WP:TNT case? That applies only in the case of deletion, which no one here is arguing for. Indeed, draftification is very often used to avoid having to blow up an article. By the way, don't take my argument as a criticism of your AfC approval - you could never have known that this article was translated from Hungarian Wikipedia, which is the source of our problems here. Sycerion (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@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.

Saji • talk 08:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You wrote that a day after making the comment here. Nor does the translation issue relate to the claim you made in your original comment. Sycerion (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sycerion, @PamD, I feel at this point you two are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion as to whether or not AI was used in the drafting of this article. It is impossible for Saji to prove a negative. I'd suggest you take a look at WP:STILLSLOP (which I wrote) and WP:LLMTNT. You'll notice that draftification is not one of LEvalyn's suggested methodologies because there are only two ways to clean up slop: WP:STUBBIFY, or deletion. Moving slop outside of mainspace does not clean it. guninvalid (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not made an accusation of AI usage here, and I remain without an opinion on that allegation. No one is bludgeoning a point here - especially not when the editor in question is repeatedly dodging questions. Sycerion (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I have simply asked what the editor meant when they used the meaningless term "Academic division of the University of Zadar", or how they came to use this wording. I have had no answer. PamD 10:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Immigrant entrepreneurship

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

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

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. Cubnorth (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. This might shed some light. — Iadmc♫^talk  06:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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 appreciate the work done by all editors, including those critcal of my work JondeJon1 (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEWLLM. The topic is notable, but the article is AI-generated. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment what the indications of AI generation here, still learning!AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Additional comment The rewriting has unfortunately not changed my stance that the topic is too broad to say anything meaningful. Cubnorth (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Bhawana Ghimire

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

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

I think it fails WP:GNG. Many sources are company-based press release coverage which don't account for the notability guideline. Nirvana869976 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Nirvana869976 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cricket, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

I disagree that the other ones are routine, there are two non-routine ones in there IMO (NDTV, Himalaya Times). I do agree that the Cricket Monthly is sigcov. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Arguably enough coverage via google news and google books to suggest that this article passes WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  The books have two lines each about the subject, which are available in the preview. This amounts to nothing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sleepy Sea

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

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

One of 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Keep. I believe that the sources identified by Fontana2026 are sufficient to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Imaginando

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ADMASQ. This article was erroneously moved from the draftspace by Katoya78 in 2024, mere days after an AfC reviewer had rejected it as non-notable, following previous similar rejections. The article lacks significant coverage of the company itself beyond an WP:INDISCRIMINATE recounting of its products and promotional history. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Companies, Technology, Software, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Portugal. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 20:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep I think it scrapes past WP:NCORP. Pollia (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. In my opinion, we should only re-format the entire article. I agree it's not really that WP:NOTABLE, but I think keeping it will work. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 09:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Delete: Looking over most of the sources, they are either press releases, regurgitated interviews with the founder, or coverage of one of the company's products rather than the company itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)