Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles

Shortcuts

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 WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Suspected AI-generated articles|~~~~}} 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

Purge page cache

watch

Suspected AI-generated articles

Studio 107.5

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

Appears to be mostly LLM-generated, doesn't seem to be notable, and not in-line sourced except a list of references, of which none seem to be reliable. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related AfD discussions. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with the diagnosis of LLM: The exact reasons for its closure are not widely detailed, but changes in media landscapes, evolving listener habits, and strategic decisions by media groups can lead to such closures or format changes is typical LLM waffle when it doesn't know something. M kuhner (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
it's Axel1382004 (talk · contribs) , blocked but likely needs all their edits and creations cleaned up Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Lots of WP:AISIGNS requiring erasure. A major metro radio station would be notable with the right sourcing, and someone with more specialty in Sweden might want to try their hand. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - pure AI-generated slop with zero modification. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing NOLLM after the expansion in Diff/1293050933 (the user's talk page is rather colourful), and prior to that it was an unreferenced stub. I might change my !vote if someone found an RS and reverted to the old stub. ‑‑gurkubondinn 03:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dark Sky Boschplaat

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

AI generated. TNT. m s k 22:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. m s k 22:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete it, diagnosis of LLM seems correct. No comment on notability of the subject, and nothing against someone writing an article about the park. ‑‑gurkubondinn 03:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Ali Nganda Kasirye Mulyanyama

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

AI generated (refs linking to homepages of the source). TNT. m s k 22:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Suspected AI-generated articles. m s k 22:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

2011 Pocahontas tornado

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

I propose to delete because this article is poorly sourced, with some paragraphs being completely unsourced, is poorly written (with some likely assistance from a LLM), and the tornado itself fails #1, #2, #3, and #5 of the WP:NTORNADO criteria, as it has no significant coverage, no lasting coverage, had no casualties, and did not significantly damage a town. All the content in this article is better covered by April 2011 Iowa tornadoes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I am really baffled by this. Sharkeston (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support — This article is not properly cited and fails against many of the outlined policies for Wikipedia articles. This is yet another example of this user abusing their power to move articles to the main space. Sobriquetical (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Heavy Support Quincy Gordon (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above ~2026-43385-91 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support - Per above, doesn't meet WP:NTORNADO. Also the existence of this article in the first place baffles me, as there is not only a tornado outbreak article about this event, but there is also a a in-depth article about the tornado family's impacts. There is no reason for a third article to exist, let alone one that is poorly sourced. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Support per above. Also, note the user is working on several tornado and tornado-related articles and should be advised on how to pivot to being productive instead of being disruptive. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Likely LLM-generated, including emotionally charged language and superficial analysis, e.g.: The 2011 Pocahontas tornado left a prominent legacy within the meteorological community as a definitive case study in complex multi-vortex supercell behavior, specifically regarding the mechanics of satellite tornadoes out-rating their primary parent systems. and The people who lived in the house on one of these farms were very lucky. Other articles by the same user show signs of LLM-generated content as well, and all were created mostly in one go with no sources initially. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Doesn't make NTORNADO. Khalitate (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Eric Ingram

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

AI slop. TNT. m s k 00:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spaceflight. m s k 00:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: Every source is either WP:ROUTINE or WP:PRIMARY, and the entire thing reads like Eric's publicist provided ChatGPT with his CV and asked it to write a Wikipedia article about him and then uploaded it. Unless someone is able to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY and provide multiple sources showing significant, unaffiliated, non-routine coverage, the best bet is deletion. Even if someone can find and prove notability with sources, what's there now should be WP:TNT'd anyway.Foxtrot620 (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - everyone should know that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Russian imperialism and colonialism in fiction

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

I'm not finding support for the idea that this topic is notable -- there are certainly books written in similar molds, but scholars do not appear to have treated all of them from 1840 to 2019 as a single category worthy of analysis. Still, it's a bit of a synthfest and it certainly feels like it should be a notable topic, so I may be/would be happily proven wrong (even if we have to do some WP:TNT on the article as it stands). Otherwise, I'd like to see a merge of what's salvageable to Russian imperialism and Russian literature. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Edit: note that this article's creator is being discussed at WP:AI noticeboard#Hyrdlak. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Russia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We do have scholarly works with titles like "Empire and the Russian Novel" "Russian Imperial Presence in Literature", "Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy", "Romantic Imperialism in Russia’s Legitimizing of Conquering the Far East", "Imperial Knowledge: Russian Literature and Colonialism", so there's probably an article that could be written here without undue SYNTH, though I haven't looked too closely. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Suspected AI-generated articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnecessary amalgam of two cited articles. Wareon (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and stubify because @Eddie891: has presented sources that show this topic is notable. So stubify, and affix the presented sources, so there is the possibility to build a new article based on reliable information from reliable sources. Or, it seems there would be enough content to build a section or two for Merging content into Russian imperialism and Russian literature. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Eddie891 and The ed17 I am thinking it would be best to change the title of this article to reflect the presented sources. I am not sure what that would be though. And it cannot be done until the AfD is complete. So, I am thinking that the title would somehow have the words "Russian," "Empire," and "Literature" or "Fiction". I don't think colonialism is a good fit at the moment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

China conquers Europe (literary topos)

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

This topic has no obvious inherent notability, and its definition appears to be defined by us, not reliable sources. It's a bit of a WP:REFBOMB situation. Many of the novels are also self-categorized by us rather than reliable sources doing that work. Some of the material could be merged to Yellow Peril. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Edit: note that this article's creator is being discussed at WP:AI noticeboard#Hyrdlak. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom and WP:OR. Orientls (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Russia conquers Europe (literary topos)

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

Russia taking over Europe does indeed appear in many fictional books, but there is no indication that it is notable and/or that academics have examined it as such. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Edit: note that this article's creator is being discussed at WP:AI noticeboard#Hyrdlak. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. I agree with the nom. There is no indication of the notability of this specific topic. This is surprising because this topic as a plotline does occur in many fictional works, including works covered in this Wikipedia article. Hence, this is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I am open to someone showing this is a notable topic, in which case I will change my ivote. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Aras Can Dönmez

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

Created in violation of WP:NOLLM. Quoting GnomingStuff: since v1, note WP:AISIGNS e.g. undue emphasis on broader trends, superficial analyses, AIVOCAB etc.

Due to AI use, the article appears to contain multiple verification fails and a hallucinated URL (which I tagged). I used Google Translate to translate the sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Turkey, Arts, Suspected AI-generated articles, and People. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails NOLLM. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - absolutely full of AI hallucinations. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - everyone should know that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

July 2026 State of the Union Address to Pyidaungsu Hluttaw

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

The formatting and structure indicates this might have been written with WP:LLM AI. For instance, there are many sections uncited and bolded sub-headings that do not meat MOS The content itself is also very fluffery-adjacent and likely is WP:UNDUE coverage. Beyond that, it also likely does not meet WP:NEVENT as the coverage is recent and routine even if covered in diverse sources EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Myanmar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete : WP:NEVENT | WP:NOTNEWS WinKyaw (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete: As I look at it this article is AI-generated. You can check the writing style. haruka amaranth 04:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Saimazoom

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

This article is mostly a copy and paste from an WP:LLM generated summary of this 1980s game. LLM or not, it fails WP:GNG due to most of the sources being non-notable gaming forums.

In addition, the user who made this has made other articles that are LLM copy-pastes that are not notable. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United Kingdom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep This is clearly a notable game, with reviews in Sinclair Programs, Crash, Your Computer, Sinclair User and MicroHobby, all of which are reliable sources. I didn't look closely at the other Spanish magazines but given it's a Spanish game there may well be more. Looking at the history, Vrxces has already removed the LLM-generated text and added some better refs. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails NOLLM. The user is almost certainly not being honest about their llm use, see also thr WP:AIN § User:Soldatipro. No comment on notability, so I am also not opposed to a stubification if someone is up for that. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am okay with a keep outcome of the stubified version. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep and stubify any offending content - the article satisfies WP:GNG per the sources identified above; issues like WP:NOLLM or the misconduct of the article creator can be cured through ways that don't require deletion of the article. I will say the original state of the article was pretty bad even when WP:AGF. VRXCES (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep as already cleaned up by Vrxces. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Beata Gutarowska

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

One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 34 & 3.4K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No awards and most of the page is promo that would be removed if the page is retained. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Archaeology, Biology, and Poland. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons given. The page claims that she is in the Stanford University list of top 2% scientists, but curiously the link given is to a page in Polish (which I can't read). Why not give a link to the list itself, at https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/ ? Searching for her name yields "no matching result found", however I write her name. It finds scientists I know with no problem, so it's not that I don't know how to search it. Athel cb (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Athel cb Maybe the link you linked to above is a different list, with another methodology, not the same as the Stanford one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

PS. Corrections. First, it's the same list, second, I see her name in https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/Search?AuthFull=Gutarowska . For some reason, it's listed twice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I do wonder if being head of the department does not meet "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." NPROF criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think being in the Top 2% is enough for NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Piotrus,
1. Please see the discussion of the Stanford list. By concensus it does qualify.
2. Being department chair falls under WP:NPROF#C6 and does not qualify. It is an administrative position, not a merit award.
Ldm1954 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

What Do You Call It? From Grassroots to the Golden Era of UK Rap

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

In addition to the LLM issues, there are no sources present that help this pass WP:NBOOK. There are questionably reliable interviews and nothing else; interviews can be helpful to build out an article but do not help notability unless there is substantial independent content in the piece, which is not the case here. A search found no other sources that are all 3 of independent, significant coverage, and reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Suspected AI-generated articles, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

hi, thank you for your note. In addition to the The Times newspaper reference, and Crack magazine end of year list refrenced. The book was subject to at least two independent reviews from note worthy print magazines. Would proof of those reviews help? ~2026-41850-33 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Those sources are interviews or do not have sigcov on the book.

What reviews? Are they from reliable sources? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment Right now, I’m not seeing enough here to count these as proper reviews. The wire and mojo citations are missing page numbers and do not show any details how much coverage there was. The wax poetics one is even shakier and may just be a blurb. Until someone provides fuller citations or copies, I would not use them for WP:NBOOK. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: With the reviews, keep in mind that sourcing doesn't have to be on the internet to establish notability - it just has to be verifiable. In other words, in this situation we often have to assume that the reviews are of a proper length unless we have evidence to the contrary (ie, magazine doesn't do reviews, they only do capsules, etc). So rather than address the potential length of the reviews, the better option would be to look at if the outlets themselves are reliable or not. That said, it would also be very good to have page numbers for these reviews if that is available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Frontier Climate

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

Author has admitted to LLM use (see WP:AINB § User:Global Donald) and article has clear WP:AISIGNS. LLMPROD repeatedly contested but I don't think the LLM text has been adequately cleaned up. As a separate issue, the vast majority of citations appear to be WP:CORPTRIV and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. M kuhner (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. M kuhner (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep This article covers the most notable investment coalition related to carbon dioxide removal-- after major tech companies such as Google and Microsoft, they are the single largest source of investment in the space.

I reviewed the sources and claims on the document, and have reviewed the framing/language use: this is consistent with over 5 years of monitoring these topics. Yes it included AI text at one point in history, before the policy about AI text was in place. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem if you think the flavor of the text is not neutral -- however, all the sources and the claims check out for me (with 20 years of work on wiki, and over 7 years working on climate topics). Sadads (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

See the sector tracking data for investment in the space for my claim on single largest investor outside major tech. I have reread the article about 5-10 times now, and nothing stands out to me as either wrong, non neutral, or anything but factual claims backed by the sources, Sadads (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I will respectfully ask that you look specifically for claims cited to source A but only verified by source B. This is a serious problem with recent LLM and it is difficult for a topic expert to catch because every claim seems reasonable. However "this is supported by A" when it is only supported by B is still a falsehood.

Would also be interested in an analysis of how the large block of text on dollar values of investments is not WP:CORPTRIV, and what are the three best sources for notability. M kuhner (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I just went back and double checked all the double or triple citations again (for at least the third time) they map to the specific factual claims.

Moreover, the coalitions purchases/investments are covered in Bloomberg, Rueters, WSJ, and Anxios -- alongside ample industry or climate press.

IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to block the existence of an article, especially when it is at the center of an industry. I am not bullish on Carbon dioxide removal, nor particularly like Frontier as a company. BUT their investments are ubiquitous in this space, and includes a lot of money from major actors -- making it notable simply as from it significance as a funder. Sadads (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There's no IDONTLIKEIT here. This is one of 600+ articles with significant contribution from an admitted LLM using editor and I'm just working my way through them. Thank you for checking the sources, that's extremely helpful. I will let the AfD run through in the hopes of getting more comments on notability, but I think we can consider the LLM issue dealt with. (I wasn't able to do this myself, because again, 600 articles.) M kuhner (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete Appears to be WP:PROMO with over half the sources coming from the company itself. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis against NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Weak Keep but stubify. Refs. 16, 18, and (maybe) 14 are RS with significant coverage (but seem awfully close to churnalism to me). The rest of the sources, however, are obvious PR releases and/or blog posts which are completely unsuitable for notability. If all the specifics we can find on a company come from press releases, we can't really have a detailed article, but I do think WP:NCORP is just barely met. So a stub seems appropriate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC) reply