Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
Chatbots (and the large language models that power them) have become very popular; they can often output material much faster than humans can. Unfortunately, they cannot write as well as humans (yet), and their output is prone to hallucinations, false citations, and other errors. This has created a major cleanup burden at Wikipedia, as many editors (especially new ones) try their hand at using artificial intelligence to edit Wikipedia. You can help by identifying AI-written text, removing unsourced or inaccurate claims, and by identifying AI-generated images. For more information, see our AI Cleanup Guide.
In addition to the LLM issues, there are no sources present that help this pass WP:NBOOK. There are questionably reliable interviews and nothing else; interviews can be helpful to build out an article but do not help notability unless there is substantial independent content in the piece, which is not the case here. A search found no other sources that are all 3 of independent, significant coverage, and reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hi, thank you for your note. In addition to the The Times newspaper reference, and Crack magazine end of year list refrenced. The book was subject to at least two independent reviews from note worthy print magazines. Would proof of those reviews help? ~2026-41850-33 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are interviews or do not have sigcov on the book.
Almost certainly non-notable businessman. The article has been mangled by LLM use, but was always weak: Of the two sources with external links, one doesn't mention Weston at all, one is an extremely trivial name-drop, and the first two I can't find at all (not in a web search nor the Internet Archive). Rather promotional tone and far too much detail for the level of sourcing given. He's a real person and I can find routine database listings, but nothing anywhere about him. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can someone awarded the CBE possibly be non-notable? It's a very high honour only awarded to notable individuals. We have always assumed recipients of the CBE and above to be notable. Also chief executive of one of the most important companies in the UK. Also meets WP:GNG with a Google search showing plenty of hits (contrary to the claim by the nominator). Very obviously notable in any sense of the term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yang Biao was one of China's three excellencies (which alone is enough to keep him), plus other sources such as Kongming's Archives and Rafe de Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms agree with the page. One person using an LLM is no reason to cut a good page. DragonAtma (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The book notes: "Yang Biao 楊彪［Wenxian 文先］（142-225）；Hong- nong. Son of Yang Ci and a noted scholar, Yang Biao refused all offers of nomination and appointment until about 177 when he received a special summons. He then came to the capital as a Consultant and joined the group of scholars commissioned to prepare a fourth instalment of the official dynastic history "Record of Han"漢記. Other colleagues in the project were Ma Midi, Cai Yong, Han Yue and Lu Zhi, and their work included annals for emperors An and Shun, for the infants Chong and Zhi and for Emperor Huan, with biographies updated to the end of the reign of Emperor Huan in 168. It was at this time that the history acquired the name of Dongguan Hanji 東觀漢記，from the Eastemn Pavilion KWE of the Southern Palace, where the library and workrooms were located. Yang Biao later became a Palace Attendant, and in 179 he was Intendant of Jingzhao. He presented a report and complaint that retainers of the eunuch Wang Fu had set up a private toll-post on his borders, and the Director of Retainers Yang Qiu used this as an excuse to destroy Wang Fu and his party. Yang Biao then held a series of court, commandery and ministerial appointments."
The book notes: "In contrast to such men as these, who gave personal loyalty to Cao Cao, officials associated with the tradition of Han presented more problems. Notable among them was Yang Biao.38 The Yang family had held office for generations, and Yang Biao's father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all been Excellencies. A noted scholar, Yang Biao had worked on Dongguan Hanji, the dynastic history of Later Han, but he also held a number of senior posi-tions, and he gained reputation as an opponent of the eunuchs. He was appointed an Excellency by Dong Zhuo, but was dismissed when he argued against the move of the capital to Chang'an. He again held Excellency office under Li Jue and Guo Si, but was nearly killed when he remonstrated against them. Yang Biao supported the emperor on his escape to the east in 195, and he came to Xu city in 196, but he had never been a friend of Cao Cao and his wife was a sister of Yuan Shu. When Yuan Shu claimed the imperial title in 197, therefore, Cao Cao had Yang Biao arrested. When Man Chong was given charge of the case, Xun Yu and Kong Rong urged him not to question Yang Biao too harshly, and specifically not to flog him. Man Chong nonetheless applied normal proce-dures, but then reported to Cao Cao that Yang Biao had continued to claim his innocence of any treachery, and it would be a mistake to punish such a well-known man without better cause."
The book notes: "... 楊彪傳》:愧無日殫先見之明,猶懷老牛舐犢之愛。”東漢獻帝劉協時(189-220 年),太尉楊彪(142-225 年)的愛子楊修(175-219 年)為曹操(155-220 年)做主簿官(主管文書,協助處理政務),楊修的過人小聰明使曹操深恨之,最終在蜀魏爭奪漢中時找機會殺了楊修。後來,曹操見到楊彪,問楊彪為何瘦的這麼厲害?楊彪回答說我很慚愧,無日不竭盡全力去想,我為什麼當初沒有預見性來保護好我的兒子,卻讓你給殺了,直到現在我仍然懷著老牛舔牛犢的心情愛著我的兒子(猶懷老牛舐犢之愛)"
From Google Translate: "...From the Biography of Yang Biao: "I am ashamed of my lack of foresight, yet I still cherish the love of an old ox licking its calf." During the reign of Emperor Xian of the Eastern Han Dynasty (189-220 AD), Yang Xiu (175-219 AD), the beloved son of Grand Commandant Yang Biao (142-225 AD), served as Cao Cao's (155-220 AD) chief clerk (in charge of documents and assisting in government affairs). Yang Xiu's exceptional cleverness deeply angered Cao Cao, who eventually seized an opportunity to kill him during the struggle between Shu and Wei for Hanzhong. Later, when Cao Cao met Yang Biao, he asked why he had become so thin. Yang Biao replied, "I am ashamed. Every day I try my best to think about why I didn't have the foresight to protect my son, and you killed him. Even now, I still love my son with the love of an old ox licking its calf.""
Comment: the first nomination earlier this year ended in deletion, but this iteration is different enough that a G4 was declined. However, this also was briefly drafitfied (the creator contested this) due to LLM concerns; it looks like the only significant change in content after that came and went was the removal of the overbolding LLMs seem to think are appropriate for Wikipedia. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch☎✎20:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, this looks suspiciously as though the author may have a conflict of interest. In the interest of not outing people, I leave this comment here and invite people to e-mail me for private evidence. jps (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Page describing the authors own work, none of which has been published in any refereed source. Violates almost everything: WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and contains LLM relics. Page was previously draftified and problems pointed out; after 8 days the author has moved it again back to main. Every evidence of WP:NOTHERE, probably also needs to be salted. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this theory and I have a conflict of interest, which I declared openly.
I understand the concerns about the sources: most of them are my own work, and I recognize that this is a limitation.
However, the theory has been reviewed and indexed by Sciety (eLife), and the foundational article has received two recommendations on ResearchGate.
I believe that the topic may not yet be widely known, but it is discussed in at least one other Wikipedia article (the Italian page "Ponte di Einstein–Rosen").
If the community decides that the article does not meet the notability criteria now, I will accept the decision.
I only ask that, if possible, the discussion consider whether the page could be draftified again instead of deleted, so that I can continue to improve it with better sources over time.
Thank you for your time. 2891-user (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my past activity on the Italian Wikipedia: it is true that I made edits there, and I did not fully understand all of Wikipedia's policies at that time. I was exploring how to contribute, and I made mistakes along the way. I am not hiding from that. Every editor has a learning curve, and mine was perhaps steeper than most.
What matters now is not my past errors, but the fact that I am here, openly, in this discussion. I am not trying to evade scrutiny. I am answering every question, providing every source, and accepting the community's authority over this decision.
I see that this discussion has been categorized as a suspected AI-generated article by WCQuidditch. I welcome the opportunity to clarify this point openly.
While I did use an AI-based assistant to help me with the proper encyclopedic style, formatting, and translation of my work into fluent English, every single concept, reference, mathematical formula, and scientific argument in this article is my own original research, conducted over years of independent study.
My use of AI was strictly limited to a drafting and language tool, similar to how a writer might use a human editor, precisely because I am not a native English speaker and I wanted the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This is not "AI-generated content"; it is my own work, presented with the help of modern tools, which I believe is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines when used transparently and responsibly.
I hope this clarifies the matter. I am fully open to any further questions from the community.
Comment: ScienceOpen is a preprint server and having a DOI from them does not indicate peer reviewed publication.
2891-user, the use of LLMs to write or edit text for Wikipedia is not allowed, neither in articles WP:NOLLM nor in comments WP:LLMCHAT. You need to stop immediately or you are likely to be blocked. We want to hear your own human words and nothing else. M kuhner (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
my work is also visible on my ORCID profile, which is visible thank to these platforms, except for one article not regarding Distortion Gravity: here you can see my JOURNAL ARTICLE and my PREPRINTS. I love researching, so I think that the important thing is to leave a contribute to the community, for now and the future. I have a conflict f Interest on my Wikipedia article: the only thing I will not do is to influence the community decision regarding this AfD. As regards my use of AI, I'm sorry and this misuse will not happen anymore, altough my medical condition(such as Asperger and others) influence my language and my vision of world. THIS IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION: this is a new point of view and a very personal note. But, as I said to Ldm1964, altough my behaviour(I'm not mad, of course), it is not my intension to disobey the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you very much...have a nice continuation 2891-user (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of further clarity, I should point out that while I was the one to include it in that deletion sorting list, Ldm1954 had brought up LLM relics in their original nomination statement (but while placing this into other delsort lists, not that particular one). I tend to only include nominations in the suspected AI-generated list if LLM use is flagged either in a comment/nomination statement or a tag on the page itself; I'm not necessarily as astute at figuring out all but the most blatant LLM content as others. WCQuidditch☎✎01:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They were published by an editor, I can't say his name(probably for privacy), but you can freely call them what you want(Journal articles or preprints): what it's really important is the substance. I am not here to influence the decision, but I am here to show that these articles are not so ridicolous as you're describing them.Destroying a person's reputation publicly is not what I understand as a fair application of policy.If the article is deleted, I will accept it. But that will not be the end of my work. 2891-user (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources are self-authored. They are also very recent so even if we charitably assume that this work is notable then we still have to wait for other people to agree and write about it in reliable sources. abandeali (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've declared my COI and my use of AI, showed my DOIs. I've explained my medical condition. What I have to do to show that I'm in good faith? Transparency should be rewarded, not weaponized against me. Can I make mistakes? I'm human...and I'm learning faster and faster how to move here: errors are part of learning. And I want to underline again my publications' nature: they had been published by an editor, who also(I say this for trasparency) declined my article talkin' about the basis of a possible resolution of the Navier Stokes' problem(I want to say this to underline that the articles about Distortion Gravity HAD BEEN PUBLISHED, NOT 'SELF PUBLISHED'. As regards Zenodo and my Amazon book, yes, I agree with you: the book and those paper were self-published...but, for multiple reasons, they can help to build my theory's consistency. Definitively trying to show you the real nature of my work, and, as I said before, THE SUBSTANCE is the only thing we(humans, not necessarily scientists: science is for everybody, in my phylosophy) need, for a better knowledge. 2891-user (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept that you're doing this in good faith. Thank you for being transparent; we very much appreciate that.
I'm not willing to accept that your idea meets notability criteria at this time.
Remember, "notable" isn't the same thing as "important". "Notability" is "the extent to which other people have talked about this topic independently". As far as I can tell, you're the only one talking about this. That might change in the future, but it might not. You don't know the future, and neither do I, and we can't accept articles like this just because "things might change in the future". DS (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, administrators, for hearing me: for me it is very important! Now I've understood that this article, even if it's for some people 'beautiful'(in the scientific sense), it's not 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense(or in every sense, since it is too 'young'...), and probably with my COI I'm not the person who can move it to the mainspace. Now I'd like to withdraw my opposition to the deletion. I realize my position is not aligned with community guidelines, and I accept the deletion of the page, or the movement to my sandbox or another subpage of 'User:2891-user', if you want. My intention is not only 'not to disobey the rules': it's not to create enemies in the world community( in this case, the Wikipedia community) with my behaviour. Now I write my formal request, as VERBA VOLANT, SCRIPTA MANENT: PLEASE, DELETE IT OR MOVE BACK IT TO MY SANDBOX, AND I'LL NEVER TRY AGAIN TO MOVE THIS ONE(SINCE I HAVE A BAD COI). If anyone, in the future, will move back again(with more independent sources, well, but I won't try anymore. Thank you very much, L.E.P(Luca Eliseo Pavesi) 2891-user (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Editor who created the article is known to use LLMs (see WP:AINB § User:Global Donald) and 86% of text is still theirs, including several source/text mismatches and a lot of unsourced text. Decided against LLMPROD due to efforts by other editors to clean this up, but there's still way too much LLM, and too many potential inaccuracies. If someone wants to step forward to stubify that would be fine with me. M kuhner (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Usually I against deleting Soviet plane crashes due to its censorship in information; however, the reason it got nominated was not because of lack of secondary source or something like that, but because it was a mostly AI-generated article so I think, unless they could prove that it was translated from the original (Russian) one by LLM, this should be a punishment. No against stubbing too, but I think it only need to be a temporary solution.Ohok12 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Author has admitted to LLM use (see WP:AINB § User:Global Donald) and article has clear WP:AISIGNS. LLMPROD repeatedly contested but I don't think the LLM text has been adequately cleaned up. As a separate issue, the vast majority of citations appear to be WP:CORPTRIV and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. M kuhner (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article covers the most notable investment coalition related to carbon dioxide removal-- after major tech companies such as Google and Microsoft, they are the single largest source of investment in the space.
I reviewed the sources and claims on the document, and have reviewed the framing/language use: this is consistent with over 5 years of monitoring these topics. Yes it included AI text at one point in history, before the policy about AI text was in place. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem if you think the flavor of the text is not neutral -- however, all the sources and the claims check out for me (with 20 years of work on wiki, and over 7 years working on climate topics). Sadads (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will respectfully ask that you look specifically for claims cited to source A but only verified by source B. This is a serious problem with recent LLM and it is difficult for a topic expert to catch because every claim seems reasonable. However "this is supported by A" when it is only supported by B is still a falsehood.
Would also be interested in an analysis of how the large block of text on dollar values of investments is not WP:CORPTRIV, and what are the three best sources for notability. M kuhner (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Typical corporate spam for a five-year-old fintech company, declined as a speedy. References are all junk, and the article appears to be AI-generated as well. MediaKyle (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it amusing that one of the sources, the Entrepreneur, has this disclaimer in their article they highlighted because it's written by the company itself: "Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own." ABehjat (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT, as coverage does not appear to be continued, with not even a "one year from" article that I could find. Additionally, the article seems to be AI-generated, so a WP:TNT could be in order even if the topic is later conclusively proven to be notable. JustARandomSquid (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for what it's worth, the possibly LLM-generated text was added in 2023 (when LLMs were just starting to become prevalent and we didn't really have much policy on the matter yet), while the remaining stub has been around since 2008. (No opinion on anything else.) WCQuidditch☎✎00:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another ROTM school in India. Found nothing with SIGCOV in additional searches to warrant standalone notability. BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it)13:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any coverage for this software in WP:RS for it to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, the page appears to have been partially or mostly generated by AI (see the weirdly named heading "Name origin and confusion" and the features list with excessive bold). There was a previous AFD at this title in 2008 but it seems to have been for something completely different. Schützenpanzer(Talk)00:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't see any strong signs of AI-generation, especially given its first revision contains many human-like errors. AI-polished, maybe, but not wholesale generation. Catalk to me!15:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (COI disclosure). I am disclosing a conflict of interest under WP:PAID/WP:COI: I am affiliated with Hostaway. I am not editing the article during this discussion and post here only to offer a source assessment for uninvolved editors to weigh.
I agree with the nominator that much of the current sourcing is WP:CORPTRIV - the funding-round and valuation pieces (TechCrunch 2023/2024, PhocusWire, Business Wire, the December 2024 valuation reports) should be discounted for notability despite the outlets being reliable. The keep case does not rest on them.
The coverage I believe meets WP:SIRS independently of the funding narrative: Talouselämä (21 Feb 2018), a product-and-market analysis of the platform in the context of short-term-rental regulation, in a major Finnish business publication - independent secondary analysis, not a raise announcement, predating the funding coverage. Taken together with sustained coverage across independent reliable outlets from 2018 to 2025 and the independently reported milestone of becoming the first short-term-rental-management unicorn (verified $1B valuation; $365M round led by General Atlantic), I believe the subject clears WP:NCORP.
On WP:NOLLM: authorship method is not a deletion criterion, and the article's factual claims are supported by the cited reliable sources. If any passage reads as promotional, the remedy is copyediting, not deletion.
If consensus is that the independent depth is still insufficient, I would ask that the article be draftified rather than deleted, so it can be resubmitted via WP:AFC once further independent coverage exists. HostawayOfficial (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you sharing the rule about AI, but this is in fact a human. I'm just trying to abide by Wikipedia's rules for engagement and nomenclature. ~2026-40818-18 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you sharing the rule about AI, but this is in fact a human. I'm just trying to abide by Wikipedia's rules for engagement and nomenclature. AlexfromHostaway (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely LLM-generated article. The most glaringly obvious signs are the overly dramatic headings and subheadings (f.ex. The Simultaneous Epochal Matrix ('Past Forward'), The 'Blind Review', Conceptual Migration to the Stuttgart State Opera (2026)) and the bolded WP:AILISTS.
Unfortunately, I had first draftified the page but the user DRAFTOBJECTED before being blocked by copypaste moving it, so now we have to go through AfD instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn15:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by the nominator. Though I am not sure there is anything worth saving here, so delete would alternatively be merited. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This page needs to be cleaned and fixed of the LLM-generated content, but surely not deleted. The there is page which deals with this topic currently but it cannot accommodate this. Instead, ethnic relations in India should have a link to this page as the main page in the section noted. Astra Travasso (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect LLM generated misleading content. Also agree with the nom that the topic enough does not really warrant to have its own article. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact)15:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. I have carried out the kind of cleanup that would be needed here a couple of times, and have reluctantly concluded that it shouldn't be done as it is more work, and riskier, than writing a new article from scratch. No prejudice to clean recreation. M kuhner (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom. The article includes too much about geography and colonial times, and the sources are not explicit enough to call it a racism. There is a lot of news-related content. Whatever valuable content there is, it can be easily merged to Ethnic relations in India, which way is smaller in comparison. MapSGV (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I have a connection with NupekoTV and have edited this article. I have substantially rewritten the article, added additional independent sources and revised the content to follow a neutral encyclopedic style. The article now includes coverage from independent publications including The Informant247, Sahara Reporters and CIIJ. I welcome independent review. Yabagilaf (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Delete. Draftify. I have found a total of four reviews of her books: 1, 2, 3 and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries; Jul2024, Vol. 61 Issue 11, p1151-1151, 1/4p. 3 reviews of 1 book and 1 review of 1 book isn't sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. HRShami (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the reviews David Eppstein has found I have changed my vote to Draftify. While she is clearly notable, there are large swathes of unreferenced text in the article and the OP has also raised concerns about AI-generated content in the article. HRShami (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews of her works in academic reliable sources identified in this discussion that together show a pass of WP:NAUTHOR so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Salvaging the content is not possible either given the information present and how it's written. Agreeing with nom and their assessment. ABehjat (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hold up. This was published by Lane Raspberry, whom I rather doubt was using AI. It appears to have been made in an editathon. Why do you think it is AI? Was it introduced after Lane published it? If so, surely this can be salvaged by just reverting to an earlier version. Or perhaps Lane has insight into its creation? CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓23:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the section labelled `Neurodiversity-lite` sounded a lot like an AI article (basically like an essay transformed to a Wiki article template/format). ABehjat (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - I wasn't aware of the context, and was reviewing the most recent set of changes and it was a lot of back and forth between two users so I thought it was spam.
(If we restore to original created article) - Rename to "Neurodiversity in work environments" or "Workplace accommodations for neurodiverse persons" - title(s) better suiting the sources, since the sources don't mention "labor rights"
@Avatar317: I do not have a rename suggestion. There are Wikipedia articles or redirects for "labor rights by (country)", and I chose this title based on that precedent, which is an adequate fit but there could be something better. Bluerasberry (talk)13:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I oppose a deletion, but whether to merge or move is up to you all. Everyone knows Blueraspberry, who ran for the WMF board, and by reputation would never create an AI article. Bearian (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the above, frankly. Lane is certainly far from someone to use AI in their writing. The article also definitely seems noteworthy here, and I would oppose a merge as above. The topic of neurodiversity is far broader than just autism. EggRoll97(talk) 04:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is this possibly the correct name for this? "Historically, neurodivergent people have experienced unemployment much more often than neurotypical people" is not about labor rights. "In 2015 Ernst & Young established a program to recruit autistic workers" is not about labor rights. "A common advantage is difference of perspective; because the demographic has a different lived experience, individuals in that demographic can speak for themselves to share opinions which often differ from neurotypical people" is not about labor rights. Of course its noteworthy, but there's another much better article that has the same content and more. This is way too duplicative to keep separate. The other article is welcome to include other types of neurodiversity besides autism but keeping this in addition to it is redundant and unnecessary, these are in no way distinct topics. — Reywas92Talk16:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a direct translation of the French Wikipedia article and appears to check out. What's the issue aside from the article creator? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? The article appears to be a direct translation of the corresponding French Wikipedia entry and appears to check out. Yes the author of the article was blocked for LLM and other issues but it doesn't seem like those issues affect this specific article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any responses to Beanie's inquiry? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi03:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ighs It actually explicitly meets both of those. Can you explain where you're drawing the notion from that it doesn't? It also satisifies secondary source requirements and breadth of coverage. The only backing you've provided for your claim is that it seems trivial, which isn't really an argument at all.
I will say (as someone who decidedly isn't one) that I think this is part of the reason why conservatives believe this site is biased against them. They have just as much history behind their movement as liberals and leftists do, and it's equally important that we explore it.
On WP:NPOL, Call has never held office, or been a member of a legislative body at that level. Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected, re-elected, election ongoing), but you could make the case for embezzlement articles meeting notability. In general (excluding that), coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject. Ighs (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like half the time Wikipedia editors expect every article subject to be an A-list celebrity; people necessarily exist in their context. He was the statewide chair of one of only two major parties in the United States. NPOL doesn't actually explicitly say "government" office, it just says statewide office. Nonetheless, one line down from the one you referenced would indicate that he's a [major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage. Were you hoping for an expose on the layout of his garden? You only need 2 sources to establish notability. Even without mak[ing] the case for embezzlement meeting notability, that's still been well and over satisfied.
Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected ,re-elected, election ongoing) − Challenged by R Street, CBA-CLE, US News
coverage is...not independent of the subject - You misunderstand what that actually means, per WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Four of 15 sources are/were affiliated with Call in some manner or another. None of them, though, were used to establish notability.
Call does, however, satisfy the earlier rule on "significant coverage" − that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Keep: Coverage seems substantial, as far as I can see, meeting WP:NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Additionally, the embezzlement and other issues appear to support further. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My impetus, my muse! I've missed our chats. @Magnolia677 what's your estimate of how many state or national committees you'd have to chair before you're no longer considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL?
Keep On balance, I think the subject clears GNG. There are stories about his election as Colorado Republican chair and his disbarrment. I am not sure (politician) is the right title, however. --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd initially had it as 'party chair', but it was moved soon after.
Keep, Individual who is the subject of the article in question received significant coverage relating to disbarment in 2021 stemming from embezzlement. (AP, CBS, etc.) Individiaul also got some not significant coverage relating to an alleged illegal vote in 2011. In 2013, Individual got significant coverage from KUNC about their election to state party leadership. Also there is significant coverage from other sources online, such as this one.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey would you mind posting those sources in a Refideas box
({Refideas|[Url here (space in between) any name you wanna give it, at least a character here]})
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Trending towards keep, but relisting to be sure - there is no real discussion about the depth and the quality of available sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear we've got 29 sources on this article now and at least 20 of them are from reliable regional or national sources discussing him directly in relation to his embezzlement case or the state GOP. I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't be considered a Keep, even if we need to strip it down to solely to a consideration of WP:GNG, which if I'm not mistaken only calls for significant sustained coverage by 2-3 reliable national or regional sources, which we have well and truly surpassed by this point, and I still have at least a dozen sources I haven't worked into the text yet. Also just so we're clear I in no way used AI to write this other than google search finding synonyms for words, so even if it's listed as such don't let that be a factor in your decision.
Like guys what is this, this has kind of gotten absurd. I'd get it if we were looking at a barely developed article with like 5 sources that only focused on his embezzlement case or minor events in the state party; I've written almost 2,000 words people, the train has left the station. Unless this is a training exercise in analyzing base principles to the point of nonsense I cannot see any reason we still need to be here. Once we've finished up, anyway, I'd figure someone on the Delete side must be able to complete its review, having looked over and considered all of the available sources to make their determination in this discussion.
Delete Using POL to show notability is rather generous, appears to have held various office positions. Getting kicked out over the theft of funds isn't quite meeting criminal notability either, appears to have a rather routine career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every politician is just doing their job. Notability has nothing to do with whether we personally find something interesting or intriguing but whether reliable sources took note of the subject and bothered to write about it. Katzrockso (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a politician, it's an office worker that stole from their employer. Neither is notable. We have GNG, but this isn't a notable individual, is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage passes the GNG. Do you disagree there are more than two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject? Did you read any of the sources? Katzrockso (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Oaktree b's analysis. High number of sources =/= notable, particularly when it comes to a BLP. Also, to note, an RfC on the issue of whether NPOL covers sub-national party official was snow closed with consensus against (permalink). voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts @Oaktree b @Magnolia677 Can you explain what these sources actually lack? Are you guessing you need 40 sources to establish notability, or do you think more are needed? Do they all need to be book length coverage of the individual, or is it ok if it's only a small database worth of referable material? Also, do they need to be God? Genuinely what more could you people possibly demand. If you think there should be no new articles on the website you can just say that instead of dancing around the issue for the sake of posterity.
Also, @Voorts I'd caution you against viewing this as a global consensus, or previous decisions as reflecting the real median view of the community. It's equally likely that the deletionist / exclusionist crowd is simply louder than the rest; I know for a fact they're more active on every discussion board, because inclusionists are the typically ones busy writing the actual content being scrutinized[Rev. I have literally seen it with my own eyes. I know from having literally reviewed the individual user data by hand that many of the most active exclusionists' activity on the website is massively lopsided towards site discussion over actual content additions. Personally, I'm critical of that, personally, but I'm not presenting it as an objective negative. I thank User:Voorts for their contributions, but point to the fact that they are most certainly the exception over the rule, and don't think being honest about that fact is something that we need to be so critical of.]
I don't challenge consensus once its been firmly established, but importantly their wasn't a great deal of diversity in viewpoint, nor a great deal of words, expressed by the many individuals in favor of Oppose on that discussion. My point being, I don't think that you or they engaged in good faith in the discussion, or bothered to take the time to actually analyze and consider the opposing viewpoint, really it was just all of you patting each other on the back for minds that think alike. Cheer your consensus if you wish, I don't think it was an honest or accurate one.
You responded in the affirmative when I asked if you wanted an RfC. I started one at VPP. Within 24 hours, there was not a single !vote in favor. You did not !vote, although I know you were aware of the RfC because you "thanked" my edit starting it. After over 24 hours, an independent admin closed the discussion per WP:SNOW with notice that they would do so. A SNOW close at VPP rejecting a proposed change to a guideline is about as close as you can get to a global consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR:Voorts this part is broadly directed, not specific to you:
Read it or don't, I'm not gonna apologize for a long post since pretty much every piece of it is new argumentation or a response to a point raised in the in-between period. If that's something that can't be managed because you have other things to do on the website, maybe you don't actually need to do those things. The whole point of engaging with this initiative at all is to do so in good faith and to produce the most positive results possible, not to just pass by and make your opinion known and realized in as many settings as possible. Desperation to recognize WP:The deadline is now to the point of blunder or oversight is an equally indictable violation of WP:ADVOCACY. If you feel it beneath you to devote additional time to this, in the same manner as you might consign someone else to as consequence of the massive, sometimes inescapable delay of WP:ONUS, then you really shouldn't be the one performing that work to begin with, you clearly don't understand its weight or import; I firmly believe that in such cases you're doing more harm than good.
Response to Voorts
What's the point in saying anything when by the time you get home to do so there are already 12 people making the same point, and the question of whether or not the proposal qualifies for WP:SNOW is already publicly under consideration. Why bother? The earlier discussion had already pretty clearly shown that people weren't willing to engage with the points I was making in favor of pointing out why other points were more important?
If I'm just gonna have the same point spit back to me 15 times by different people like I'm the village idiot (even when I respond to the points they make, and raise additional points of contention), what's the point in believing that any of the principles of WP:CONSENSUS actually hold any sway or meaning at all?
You see the point I'm making about inclusionists? In the same instance as you told me that I needed to redact my earlier statement, you told me that I should focus on content. You think that hasn't been said to hundreds of mainspace focused editors before by people who hold the exact same views you do? Why bother getting involved in discussions in the first place, if what consensus really means at the local level is that, if a lot of people tell you you're wrong then you're wrong, even if their position is genuinely detrimentally wrong? I get it, it's not about being right, it's about being respectful, it's about respecting consensus, but my whole point is that I don't think that the principles of WP:CONSENSUS are being respected by the same people claiming I've stepped over a line, and they don't seem to care to respond to that assertion while doubling down on the notion that I'm in violation? Where do I, or anyone else go to rectify that?
You can't tell me it's not more likely that a person who is committed to reducing in broad strokes the amount of content that's automatically accepted on the website (which I'm not implying is a bad thing, though I personally believe it to be) isn't more likely to get involved with an RfC determining any question of excluding content than someone with inclusive beliefs with a particular understanding of only a few subject matters. The immediate barrier to entry for any exclusion-focused editor is having a base foundation in the site's core policies. The effective barrier to entry for the individual advocating for the content is not only an understanding of existing relevant policy, but a strong enough background in the material to meet their WP:ONUS of convincing other editors that something is necessary to include. The task is necessarily harder for those that advocate inclusion, that's built into the system. Whether you believe that's justified or not, you can't claim it doesn't have an impact on who gets involved in discussion as well, which ends up skewing the sample of editors engaged in the actual policy-making process. If enough people tell me that 2+2=5 I figure we'll have to open up an RfC to determine whether or not it's true. Once we get everyone's votes in we can make it official. At least that's how it increasingly feels. There are 30 sources on here, of high quality, from
Note: Not meant for Voorts but directed more broadly: If you can take the time to challenge me on WP:CIVILITY grounds for material that isn't actually uncivil, you have already chosen to devote your time to the task,. You necessarily have the time and are in the position to engage with the actual points made in the reply. Since you have clearly read into this post deeply enough to be able to identify those violations, any claim of a TLDR violation is unconvincing. If you're taking the time to challenge me on those grounds, just don't bother replying! I'm not gonna stop. I do that for people who respect me in discussion enough to bother answering at least some of the points I've raised. I'm not being intentionally disrespectful nor attempting to drown out anyone else in discussion by doing so, I'm reminding you of a point you've chosen to ignore. Deciding and/or explicitly stating that such arguments don't matter (in the former case by simply ignoring it) itself constitutes wikibullying anyway, so really it's just advocacy of your right not to care about a particular position in an environment where you're supposed to dedicate equal respect to all of them. There's nothing explicit about NPOV as pertains to talk, but that's about as close as you can get to what would probably be considered a violation.
I've already discussed this, but... In my mind, it comes down to showing what this person did to be worthy of an article. They were the head functionary for a political entity. Never voted into office, they were hired. They stole money from the entity. The theft might be notable, the person alone isn't. I've stated my point, please stop badgering the discussion over it. Let the process play out. If this gets deleted, or if it stays, we move on either way. I've had some article deletions I didn't agree with, but this isn't Oaktreepedia. I contribute what I can and we work together no matter what happens. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the discussion isn't badgering, its unfair of you to make no real acknowledgement of my positions apart from acknowledging that you don't need to then claim it to be badgering when I repeat it as a relevant point of consideration. I think that argument itself goes against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, which encourages you to actually engage with the arguments other editors present, instead of just holding fast to your initial position.
I'm not asking as a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know what you believe qualifies something for WP:Notability. You state that its not important in consideration of broader consensus, but you are an active and influential part of determining that consensus, you can't deny that. Everyone is. It's pretty explicitly clear at WP:BUREAUCRACY that you should not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I am not casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I am directly stating my belief that the style of reasoning that you're using here to support Oppose is antithetical to the exact same set of principles that you advocate adherence to.
Notability is not determine by how significant Oaktree b (or any individual editor) finds a person, but whether it is covered (i.e. with WP:Significant coverage) by reliable sources. You could find a subject completely mundane and unimportant (as I find just about every single article on obscure chemical compounds), but if reliable sources cover the topic, then the subject is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOL is an inclusionary guideline (as are almost all of our notability guidelines). Failing one notability guideline is never a reason to delete absent the subject fails every single notability guideline. "Fails NPOL" means nothing if the subject passes the GNG (as the guideline itself has noted). The RFC, as REAL_MOUSE_IRL, is simply not relevant here. The sources provided by RightCowLeftCoast and Helpful Raccoon substantiate a pass of the GNG.Katzrockso (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that argument is incorrect, however one bad argument for one 'side' of a discussion doesn't suddenly make the rest of the arguments worse/incorrect. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above I believe it was Oaktree who claimed that there were sources that were not independent. There are also sources are independent but that fail verification: I found many statements that cannot be found in the cited sources, and cannot claim that I found them all. For instance: The second paragraph under "Views, roles and positions" is all about Call's response to the Hispanic community, but of the two cited refs, one (KUNC) is very short and does not mention any of this, and the other, USnews, says only this: Once led by nativists like Tancredo, the state party is now being shepherded by people like chairman Ryan Call, a fluent Spanish-speaker with ties to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and an eye for ways to engage a constituency he admits GOP national leaders have left behind. That's it, and yet there is a whole paragraph that goes into detail that is not in the sources cited. The last sentence of the first paragraph under "Personal life" says something that is not in any of the sources. The entire second paragraph also makes claims that are not found in any legitimate sources. Of the sources that SHOULD NOT be used are: - the National lawyers ass'n - the Colorado Republican Party - Open Secrets (cannot validate his employment, that info comes from him) - his bio at Colorado GOP headquarters (not independent, probably written or approved by him). When all of the un-sourced info and anything linked to non-reliable sources is done, what seems to remain is the story of his embezzlement. It's not nearly a significant enough crime to meet NCRIME. I am chagrined that so much of this article is unverifiable, but because it is unverifiable it definitely violates BLP. I am also chagrined because an article like this that does not follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing creates a lot of work for others. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories
