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.
I did not find any source that meets GNG for this Israeli water polo referee. The references in the article are full of appointments to tournaments and lists of officials. Enos733 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability for this water polo referee. The only pieces of independent coverage are quick three- or four-sentence blurbs like 1, 2, and 3, which consist of routine coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The previous AfD did not analyse any of the sources used, as suggested by Boynamedsue. I also have concerns of LLM usage due to language and certain citations failing verification. JTtheOG (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The best source is one Pelop.gr article with shallow interview-based coverage and a rather non-independent-sounding tone, which is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete for lack of sources and NOTCRYSTAL. I think readers can take it as understood that pretty much any video game might one day have a sequel. We don't need to create articles for all the possibilities. ApLundell (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability for this water polo referee. The only pieces of independent coverage are quick three- or four-sentence blurbs like 1, 2, and 3, which consist of routine coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The previous AfD did not analyse any of the sources used, as suggested by Boynamedsue. I also have concerns of LLM usage due to language and certain citations failing verification. JTtheOG (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The best source is one Pelop.gr article with shallow interview-based coverage and a rather non-independent-sounding tone, which is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've removed most of this article as part of the presumptive removal of LLM-generated content of the recent edits made by Giovanni Messe aka Archivio Italia (see AI cleanup investigation), who in the meanwhile has been blocked. What it's left are the parts that in the meanwhile have been partially reworded by other users (but please note that according to "who wrote that" the parts written by original author still account for 79% of the article). Now, some of the surviving parts are simply a rewording from Roman Republic (1849–1850). These parts are the less problematic, but obviously it wouldn't make sense to have an article made only of a copy of parts of another article. Unfortunately the other parts that are still there (in particular the paragraph "Initial assualts on Rome") seem to have been written through LLMs and the users who modified them have apparently only fixed the style but not the substance. For example, if I take the note number 15, I should find a page about Garibaldi's defence of Rome against Oudinot. But if I take a look at the indicated book and I go to page 227 (as written in the note), then I find a totally different topic (Garibaldi in the assembly of the Republic). The topic of the article is obviously notable, but I think that it'd be quicker to blow it up and start over, rather than checking the unreviewed (or at the very least unsufficiently reviewed) outcome of an LLM --Friniate ✉ 15:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The original editor, after promising to not add more articles and clean up LLM hallucinations, has not done so and has been blocked. Very clearly falls under WP:AIPROD. Upon first glance its clear on GPTZero but as stated previously its more about the hallucinations. I agree, lets blow it up and start over. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are already articles about the combatants. Most of this article is a rehearsal of the history surrounding the event. The meat of this article could easily be incorporated at its parent articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nom, articles like these are timesinks forced on the community by users that refuse to follow the guidelines. Let's not waste more time than absolutely needed on this, blow it up and then move on. If anyone wants to start over because they are interested in writing about the subject, they should have a clean slate to start from. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This BLP does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Two of the sources are about the same hotel detaining incident, where he gets a single sentence identifying him as one of several journalists who had their equipment confiscated. The third source just indicates that he was detained again after the hotel incident and then released. There is very little that can be verified about him besides the fact that he is a journalist involved in this one event in December 2019. I could not turn up any significant coverage in my before. He is not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia; I do not see a suitable merge or redirect target. Article also appears to be AI-generated. Zzz plant (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sourcing is too weak for a WP:BLP that has substantial potentially-contentious material. I removed some potentially-contentious material cited to weak sources (see page history), but the rest is still mainly based on brief mentions and TV show interviews. I don't think it adds up to WP:NBASIC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – Johnson appears to satisfy WP:NBASIC through independent, published coverage concerning him across several distinct periods. The Courier-Journal published a staff-written profile centered on Johnson in 1975, rather than merely mentioning him in connection with another subject. The National Catholic Reporter subsequently devoted several paragraphs to Johnson's imprisonment, parole circumstances and stated religious change in 2003. Both articles predate his television notoriety and are unrelated to the later viral interview.
Additional independent coverage includes The Atlantic discussing and quoting Johnson in its 2010 analysis of Lockup, a The Root article focused directly on him in 2015, and the Public Interest Law Reporter discussing his interview and its parody in The Boondocks in 2019. WP:NBASIC expressly permits multiple independent sources containing non-trivial but individually less-than-substantial coverage to be considered together. Taken collectively, these sources provide coverage appearing in 1975, 2003, 2010, 2015 and 2019—a span of more than four decades.
This is therefore not a conventional WP:BLP1E biography. The first condition of BLP1E requires reliable sources to cover the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the sources address Johnson's juvenile incarceration, later parole circumstances and stated religious change, television appearance, release and subsequent cultural reception during different periods. The concerns about explicit material derived from primary or weak interview sources are legitimate WP:BLP content concerns, and removing that material was appropriate. However, those problems can be addressed through trimming and reliance on the independent sources above, consistent with WP:ATD, rather than deleting a biography whose subject has received non-trivial independent coverage over several decades.
Note regarding the SPA observation: The contribution history of temporary or single-purpose accounts is separate from the subject's notability. WP:SPA itself states that comments consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should receive full weight regardless of an SPA tag, and it advises editors to focus on the subject matter rather than the person. This recommendation rests on the independent sources and policy analysis above, not on the identities or presumed motives of the editors who found those sources. ~2026-46526-01 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Dreamyshade: I disagree with the decision to collapse my Keep comment under WP:AITALK. That guideline says comments may be collapsed when they are “obviously generated (not merely refined)” by an LLM. Your message to me, however, only said that my comment “seemed” to be AI-generated. Those are different standards, and no specific evidence has been provided showing that my comment was obviously generated.
That distinction is important. Saying that something “seemed” AI-generated is an expression of suspicion. WP:AITALK uses the considerably stronger standard of “obviously generated (not merely refined)”. If there are specific characteristics, diffs, or other evidence demonstrating that this standard has actually been met, those should be identified so that other editors can evaluate the determination rather than simply being asked to accept an assumption about how the comment was written.
There is also an involvement concern here. You are the editor who nominated this article for deletion, and you then personally collapsed the opposing Keep argument with a template stating that it should be excluded from the assessment of consensus. I am not alleging bad faith, but I do think this creates at minimum an appearance of bias when the nominator is also making the determination that an opposing argument should be disregarded.
This is more than a simple formatting decision because the practical effect is that an argument opposing the position taken by the nominator is marked so that it should not be considered when consensus is assessed. Given that circumstance, I believe it is reasonable for the decision to exclude that argument to be reviewed independently.
WP:TPO cautions against involved parties using collapse templates to end discussion over the objections of other editors. I recognize that WP:AITALK separately allows comments which actually meet its LLM standard to be collapsed. The question here is therefore not whether WP:AITALK can ever justify a collapse, but whether this particular comment has actually been shown to satisfy its “obviously generated” threshold.
Given your involvement as the nominator, I believe an uninvolved editor should review whether this comment actually meets WP:AITALK's “obviously generated” standard rather than having that determination rest solely with an editor advocating for deletion.
I am also concerned about the treatment of a new/temporary editor here. The nomination itself raised the fact that temporary accounts have focused on this subject, but WP:SPA specifically cautions editors to assume good faith, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. It also states that comments which comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines should receive appropriate weight regardless of an SPA label, and advises editors to focus on the subject matter rather than the person.
Working primarily on one article or one subject, particularly as a new editor, does not by itself demonstrate improper conduct. The substance of the contribution should still be evaluated. An argument does not lose its merit simply because the editor making it has a short or narrowly focused editing history.
WP:BITE is relevant for the same reason. A new editor made a detailed Keep argument based on specific sources and Wikipedia policies. Rather than addressing those sources and arguments on their merits, attention has shifted to the editor's account history and an unsupported allegation that the comment was AI-generated.
The sequence of events is what makes this concerning: the editor's temporary/SPA status was raised, the opposing Keep argument was then characterized as AI-generated without specific supporting evidence being identified, the argument was collapsed so that it would not be considered in assessing consensus, and an AI-related warning was then placed on the editor's talk page.
The collapsed comment was not merely an unsupported “Keep” vote. It presented specific sources and policy-based arguments concerning WP:NBASIC, WP:BLP1E, WP:ATD, and WP:SPA. If those sources are inadequate, or if those policies have been interpreted incorrectly, those are legitimate issues to challenge within the AfD. The sourcing and policy arguments should be addressed on their merits.
WP:AGF also says that doubts about another editor's conduct should be supported with specific diffs and relevant evidence. An allegation that an editor improperly used generative AI concerns that editor's conduct. If there is specific evidence showing that this comment was obviously generated, please provide it so that other editors can evaluate it.
Otherwise, I request that the collapse be reviewed by an uninvolved editor and that the Keep argument be restored for consideration on its merits. I am not alleging harassment based on a single interaction, but I do believe the combination of the SPA characterization, the AI accusation, the talk-page warning, and the removal of an opposing argument raises legitimate concerns under WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and the cautions contained in WP:SPA.
If this type of conduct were to become a repeated pattern toward the same editor, that could raise additional concerns under Wikipedia's conduct policies. At this point, however, I am asking for a straightforward procedural remedy rather than making an accusation of harassment.
Accordingly, I believe the fairest solution is for an uninvolved editor to review the collapse and independently determine whether WP:AITALK's “obviously generated (not merely refined)” standard has actually been met. If it has not, the Keep comment should be restored and its sources and policy arguments should be evaluated as part of the AfD consensus.
Ultimately, this AfD should be decided based on the article, the available reliable sources, and the applicable notability and deletion policies—not assumptions about the contributor who presented an opposing argument.
I think any uninvolved editor will assume any post is AI if it's as long as what you just pasted with those bolded phrases, stern imperative phrases and that alphabet soup of policy links. Speak for yourself, it can be done. Here2rewrite (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – He is a former prisoner and author who was featured in the documentary series Lockup and later parodied in The Boondocks. There is also newspaper coverage of him going all the way back to the 1970s. This shows he has received coverage for decades and has also become part of popular culture. I think that is enough to show he is notable.~2026-46526-01 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet. ‑‑gurkubondinn00:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is AI-generated and fails NOLLM. Incontrovertible AISIGNS were just inserted by the TA in AbuseLog/44977289, and all of the TAs appear to be connected. No prejudice against someone else writing a new article about this person, should they be notable. ‑‑gurkubondinn15:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Admin note I've gone ahead and restored the redirect as the TAs (and only keep !vote) adding the new content have admitted to being a banned editor.-- Ponyobons mots18:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Reverted incontrovertibly AI-generated changes from a major contributor to the article in Diff/1371631856 (AbuseLog/44977082), the same user that created the article in 2017. I suspect that AI use goes back further than the revision that I reverted to.
The company is described as [enabling] businesses and organization of all sizes to use the latest innovations in Human Language Technology and Conversational AI,..., but the recent changes (in revision 1371634305) described the company as a software company that ...provides a resident communication and engagement platform for affordable housing, public housing authorities, and senior living communities. Both versions sound like vague corporate AI descriptions, but they also sound like they are describing different companies.
The sources in the article are either primary sources (the company's own website, inaccessible for me but is saved on archive.org) or Voicebot.ai (which seems to largely be an WP:RSML source). I have not found any WP:INDEPENDENT news coverage showing WP:SIGCOV.
Draft:Gopal Snacks exists and was rejected declined at AfC review on the same day when this article was created; because of it I am not able to dratify. Also, the current article was created using an LLM. Charlie (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: this would certainly appear to be the same subject as the first nomination from 2024 that ended in deletion. There's probably no G4 factor here nonetheless, but an LLM-generated article on a subject previously deleted at AfD for lack of notability that ended up bypassing AfC at the last second (the draft appears to have been declined–not rejected, which is a distinct and stronger action at AfC–due to the article being created, not the other way around) does not inspire confidence that any good reason to keep the page exists. WCQuidditch☎✎21:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Does not pass WP:GNG. They do not inherit the notability of the books they've published; all sourcing in the article is either primary, about books they've published with no commentary on the company, or about things that their books are about and does not mention them at all. This does not help notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(note, this is the page creator). There is not a single source in the article that helps GNG or WP:NCORP, all are primary, unreliable, do not mention them, or do not cover them substantially. The changes did not improve this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I did a major cleanup of the article by stripping a promo tone, del authors' achievements to fix WP:INHERITED issues, scaled back the page to a neutral fact-based stub, and cleaned up Refs. AuthorAuthor3 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This whole article feels LLM generated and I don't think the subject is notable. The sources talk about things that are related to this, but not precisely *this* subject. It's also more of an essay. Don't think it is in scope for Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are plenty of secondary sources available about this subject, but it largely overlaps with the existing article at software supply chain and should be covered there (WP:OVERLAP). I may reuse some of the citations to flesh out that article, but I also agree with the LLM-generated concern and don't intend to copy-paste anything I haven't rewritten myself. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I wrote this article entirely on my own. However, after receiving the first comment about AI, I rewrote every paragraph that raised concerns for three AI detectors. I would appreciate it if you could provide more specific feedback on this matter. Regarding the comment about the essay-like style, more specific guidance would also help me focus on targeted edits. As for the value of transparency, it is indeed closely linked to the software supply chain, but I believe the concept is broad enough to warrant a standalone article as one of the key principles of security. In fact, besides secondary sources, there is a book and studies 1, 2, and 3 that directly address this topic. A subsection within a general article on the software supply chain does not allow for a thorough exploration of this topic or would make the article excessively long. Cyberkiborg (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think gptzero 100% AI rate is not conclusive proof, your ai detector can be unreliable and produce false positives, however I have removed all generic words. Sokoreq (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - May be you are mistaken because KAL is a different, its an Indian system developed by IG Defence, while the HESA Shahed 136 is an Iranian system developed by Shahed Aviation! Sokoreq (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sokoreq It is only a copied version of the Shahed-136. Such versions do not need a separate Wikipedia article unless there is enough significant, independent coverage about them. WP:DILIGENCE also suggests that there is not enough information about this drone variant. Can you provide a source analysis showing why this article should be kept? Charlie (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@CharlieMehta Again maybe you are being confus, because their concepts are similar as KAL is a long range, one-way attack (“kamikaze”) drone intended for deep strikes, yes broadly the same category as the Iranian Shahed-136, but saying its a copy of the Shahed-136 is not true,
Do you have any relibe source, which verify your clam that it's 100% copy of Shahed-136?
Because “copy” is a stronger claim if you don't have evidence, and (IG Defence) Its manufacturer says in india today 1 "it is not a copy or replication of Shahed but it is a Shahed class, next gen concept inspired by the same warfare mode"
(Maybe you lack the expertise of this subject, so appearances can be misleading, because KAL has a delta or flying-wing configuration, making comparisons to the Shahed-136 understandable, but similar aerodynamics don’t prove the design, software, propulsion, guidance, or manufacturing process was copied, I hope you understand!)
Also WP:DILIGENCE is not a tool which generates suggestions, maybe you didn't check manually, however there are enough independent, reliable sources about this drone variant to meet WP:GNG, and i will do add more reliable sources in the article, also provide a source analysis. Sokoreq (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Independent news coverage which was published by The Week.
Its an established Indian news magazine.
The article is specifically about to KAL (drone) and discusses its development, and other capabilities and potential export to Gulf countries.
✔Yes
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}}.
Keep subject meets WP:GNG. Please refer to the source assessment table above, where reliable, independent media discuss this specific drone variant in detail and establish notability,
Source 1 is the original source behind the March 2026 churnalism, while Sources 2 and 3 (SOURCE 10 in the table) are part of the August 2026 churnalism. Please check the revised source analysis below. Charlie (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
These ten articles/sources shared by the Sokoreq are definitely not ten independent sources as they claim. Per WP:CHURNDET, identical spec blocks, target lists, and quotes by company executives across multiple media outlets in extremely close timeframe mean none of these articles independently establish KAL. Charlie (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Charlie, first WP:CHURNDET is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and identical facts aren't automatically evidence of churnalism iff KAL has stated their range of 1000 km, multiple journalists can independently report 1000 km,
and even mere presence of identical specifications, or company quotations does not by itself establish churnalism, and yes the essay (CHURNDET) itself says "journalists routinely quote company representatives."
I do agree that sources 9 and 10 may be derive from the same company public announcement and should not be treated as two independent sources for the same factual claims, still, that does not establish that Sources 1 to 8 are likewise worthless,
and please don't take all burden of this discussion on yourselves, Let others contribute to this discussion.Sokoreq (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not independent. Rewrites an IG Defence announcement; facts and quotes are from founder Bodhisattwa Sanghapriya and company VP Maj Gen R. C. Padhi (retd). No MoD, service, or third-party verification. Same packaged language as the 6 Mar Hindu Business Line article that openly cites “a statement.” Per WP:CHURN / WP:CHURNDET and WP:INDEPENDENT.
~Business Standard is generally reliable, but this piece is uncritical churnalism of vendor claims (range, endurance, “define future warfare”). Reliable for “the company said,” not for the capability itself (WP:RSCONTEXT).
KAL is the sole subject, but the depth is a recycled brief, not independent analysis.
Not independent. Near-verbatim reuse of the same IG Defence brief as SOURCE 1: Shahed frame, 1,000 km / 3–5 hour specs, target list, and the Padhi “home-grown capability” / Atmanirbhar Bharat quotes.
~India Today is generally reliable. This article adds no independent reporting or fact-check of the claimed performance.
Directly about Project KAL, but an another version of the company handout rather than original coverage.
Not independent. Repeats the same Padhi quote already published in SOURCE 1/SOURCE 2. Company backgrounder material (founders, retired officers, planned plants). Sloppy mixing of KAL and Sheshnag specs shows processing of packaged copy, not reporting.
~The Times of India is usable with caution. This article is a rewrite of vendor talking points, not a checked technical report.
~ Names KAL and some claimed specs, but splits attention with Sheshnag-150 and does not go beyond the press line.
~ Broader round-up of Indian one-way-attack programmes and the Iran/Shahed news peg. The KAL sentences still repeat the unverified 1,000 km / 3–5 hour company line; no independent confirmation of KAL.
India Today is an established publication. Context on other systems is stronger than the KAL paragraph.
~ KAL is one programme among several (Sheshnag, Nagastra, SkyStriker). Passing-to-moderate mention, not in-depth independent coverage of KAL.
~ Closest to real journalism in this set: Covers Op Sindoor, Electronic warfare, Rajnath Singh, multiple firms. The KAL block is still an interview with the IG Defence CEO selling swarm numbers and “what comes after Shahed.” Independent of the company for the industry frame; not independent for KAL’s claimed performance.
Magazine feature in a generally reliable outlet, with named officials and a wider reporting base than the March briefs.
~ Discusses KAL as one part of a national drone ecosystem, not a dedicated independent treatment of the platform.
Event write-up of IG Defence’s stall at North Tech Symposium. Specs (1,000 km, 7–8 hours, 200 kg, 50 kg warhead, cameras, SATCOM, RATO) and JWALA data are company-supplied. COAS “appreciated” a display is not independent evaluation.
~ Generally reliable paper publishing an uncritical spec sheet. Endurance quietly changes from 3–5 hours (March) to 7–8 hours with no reported test to explain it.
Substantial product copy on KAL, sourced to the manufacturer.
Corporate pipeline story built on CEO quotes: ₹10,000 crore by FY30, “only domestic player” over 1,000 km, export talks, 100,000-drone target. WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMO.
~ Usable for “IG Defence claims a pipeline,” not for treating those claims as established fact.
~ KAL is a supporting example in a company-growth article, not the primary subject.
Founder profile / access interview with Sanghapriya. Origin story, funding, growth percentages, and portfolio claims come from the company. Not independent of the subject.
~Outlook Business is a mainstream magazine; this piece is hagiographic startup coverage, not a check of KAL.
~ Feature on IG Defence; KAL is mentioned inside the portfolio, not examined in depth.
States that “the company said in a statement Wednesday.” CEO quote matches the IG Defence press release republished the same day (e.g. IDRW, labelled “Company Press Release” ... not able to add this link in the table as it is blacklisted across wikipedia). Officials told ThePrint it is “fully developed and tested”... still the seller.
~ThePrint is generally reliable. This item is a same-day press-release story with light extra context (other Indian Shahed-class efforts).
Focused on KAL export talks, but those talks are asserted only by IG Defence.
Same-day rewrite of the same export press release as SOURCE 9. Same specs and Sanghapriya quotes (“milestone,” “trusted partner,” “export powerhouse”).
~The Week is an established magazine; this article does not independently verify range, lethality, testing, or Gulf negotiations.
KAL-focused, but the substance is the company’s media handout.
✘No
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}}.
Yikes, this is a mess. Large sections of the article appear to be have be LLM generated or processed. More generally, the article covers both tooth brushing and professional dental cleaning; I'm not sure the latter would be appropriate at the merge target. Omphalographer (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for what it's worth, given the LLM concerns that were brought up, the article itself has been around since 2003 (of course, that is not a reason to retain an article on its own), so in theory there's almost certainly a non-LLM version to reinstate at best (but this appears to not be the rationale for the nomination itself). No opinion on the proposal itself or anything else. WCQuidditch☎✎21:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
probably LLM output. checking all the sources all but one did exist but none appeared to be actually relevant to the sentence the sources were citing daysantdevtalk19:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article was rewritten, and many portions of it were removed, after I deletion nomination. It is now improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs)
Delete - the 3 sources in the article do not demonstrate notability, 2 are affiliated with the UN (employer/partner) and 1 is her Linkedin bio. In my before, I found one article where she is mentioned, but it doesn't provide significant coverage. The article also appears AI-generated (creator is blocked for LLM misuse). Zzz plant (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
is it correct to have this kind of article which is created with ai generated content plus can any admin re-check the verifiability of this article with appropriate sources and the content should be typical human generated. Is it still required to be an article as it is an office of the Deputy commissioner of Chandigarh and it is one of the union territory of the country india only . If the article actually doesn't stand for deletion then please just suppress the revision of ngdrs where that user has posted personal indian mobile numbers on the article's main page which is not the actual wikipedia policy . If the article just in case stands for deletion then delete as there are not man dc offices of india has wikipedia articles. Jack Shukla AKA TKSS & Paplesh. (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: The nominator has previously attempted to blank this article, tag as speedy, and prod it, with the rationale that the government agency has not given permission for the article to be written. I do not have a stance on the overall question of whether it merits deletion, but I am unclear from the above text what the rationale is. (ESkog)(Talk)10:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's not just this article as well. It's all of the Chandigarh offices related articles because apparently we cannot create these articles without the departments' permissions. the most funny thing is all the articles they tried to blank are created by the nominator themselves. Elisapoly (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:NCORP and likely AI-generated due to numerous instances of WP:AIATTR. Sources are mainly routine coverage of product announcements, fundraising rounds, expansion news; no in-depth analysis that is expected for a company to meet NCORP. Executive interviews and pieces that report on the company's published studies also don't count towards WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing better. Pinging @Insillaciv: who accepted this at AFC. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. The Reuters and Axios citations cover the series a announcement, and the rest of the sources are not independent. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Source 1 is non-independent (university news about university student), 2 is literally an attendance list, 3 is again non-independent, 4 is too, 5 is self-published, 6 is a routine press release, 7 and 8 are self-published work, 9 to 13 are also either non-independent or press release. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. For WP:NCREATIVE, I don't think a university prize or a scholarship count as enough for prong 4c. Also the author is the subject of an AI noticeboard investigation here. This article is one of 24 ~6000 byte articles created within 2 hour-long article creation flurries. Bungle491 (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Even if the person is notable, the text is LLM and retaining it is just a trap. No prejudice to creation of a human-written article. M kuhner (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not sure - it was moved and speedy tagged after this AfD. Personally, I think the AfD should've just been carried out since the subject isn't really notable - now it's just going to take up draftspace for 6 months only to get G13'ed. Bungle491 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I think it fails WP:GNG. Besides, the person's name seems to be Loriene not Loreine anyways, so little to no effort has actually gone into this article in addition to the LLM usage concerns. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I simply don't think there is enough WP:SIGCOV for this person to pass the WP:GNG. Wikipedia editors should be held to the same bar as everyone else for notability. Lack of significant in-depth coverage from reliable, secondary sources. The high likelihood the article has been AI-generated is just another nail in the coffin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I searched (and rewrote the article, checking many of the cited refs), and although I found additional news coverage of his election to the WMF Board, I didn't find any additional coverage before that, and the majority of the earlier coverage is really about the effort to expand Wikipedia coverage and editing in Africa and specifically Wikimedia South Africa's efforts along those lines. He receives credit for spearheading and articulating those efforts as chapter head, but prior to his taking the Board seat, the coverage about him individually is overwhelmingly WMF. So his one point of notability in independent reliable sources is his election to the board as its first African member, and I agree that that's insufficient. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Out of the 4 citations, one is a non-independent profile on UNICEF Ghana (an employer/partner), and two are LinkedIn. I found this brief article in my before, but this merely announces receipt of a student program completion award based on his own social media post. Also seeing AI signs, separate from notability. Zzz plant (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - The citations present don't help indicate notability -- Source 1 has "Editor's note - this story is from a conversation between Fatma Naib - Chief of Advocacy and Communication UNICEF Ghana and Michael Ackon." which makes it an interview (not independent coverage). LinkedIn is not a WP:RS, and Source 4 doesn't seem to mention him. The source found by Zzz plant is also the only one I found, and seems to be a simple and routine press release for an award. Looking at his university page, it looks like that source is the only news coverage of him. Even if you counted it, it wouldn't qualify for WP:GNG under WP:MULTSOURCES. The article also seems highly likely AI-generated (weird bolding, nonexistent categories, 10+ thousand-byte articles created 3 minutes apart etc). The author is being discussed on the AI noticeboard here. Bungle491 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - I can also only find that one half-decent source in a WP:BEFORE and I agree that the UNICEF source isn't great, it's mostly just a long quote from Ackon's interview and contains little third-party analysis, so I'm not convinced that it establishes notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)10:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is AI-generated. Anone wanting confirmation can read the AIN thread and the user's talk page. Should this person become notable in the future, someone else can write a new article about them. ‑‑gurkubondinn23:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Insignificant monarch, and possibly AI hallucinations, such as this source never mentions his inscriptions let alone about himself in the given cited pages and other sources only mentions the inscription, is that all we have? An inscription and 2 liner coverage with AI speech? Vasilystepanov (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. He's mentioned briefly in reliable sources such as Encyclopædia Iranica () and here and there in different Google Books, so he's not an AI hallucination. As for the sig coverege, there's a lot about him in a book "The Art of Eastern India, 300-800" (; I've counted 41 mentions without the endnotes) by an art historian. Loosewind (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Iranica: Ādityasena, a king of the Later Gupta, performed the aśvamedha. You want to have article on the basis of these 2 lines? WP:GNG is no joke. If there's no AI hallucinations then find me his mentions on cited pp. 119-120. The source you have cited does not yield a total coverage of even half a page of his 33 mentions. Vasilystepanov (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We don't need articles on every "real king" untill & unless they are notable enough to have a standalone page, in this case, it's not. Wyvern-999 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and WP:TNT. I am unable to find further context regarding this historical figure other than his inscription; redirecting to Aphsad inscription of Ādityasena may be best for now. @Ixudi: Have you used AI to draft this page? If so, please disclose it, as we are unable to verify the content using the cited sources. Wyvern-999 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment From what I can tell this doesn't look to be fully AI. It's very focused on explaining the event just as it happened, it doesn't expound enough; plus there's too much redundancy in vocabulary. It's not inconceivable that AI was used for research or parts of the text, but it seems more like a person either connected to the event or someone with less than stellar writing abilities vis−á–vis site policy, and somewhat emotionally-invested in the events they're writing about.
I'm not active enough WP:WikiProject Weather to say with confidence what should be done here, but I'd think given the two AP sources already present, plus multiple this WP:100WORDSsegment from 5 News showing sustained coverage and this government profile that provides another 100 words qualifying source. With that in mind, guidelines state that unless there are serious, overriding deficiencies present, it should be WP:PRESERVED in some capacity. Once you've got WP:GNG it's kind of hard to justify removal when really you just need to improve the junk.
Keep I think the tornado satisfies WP:GNG and that the articel could be improved. There was coverage of the tornado more recently by a local news station (video is on the news station’s YouTube channel), as well as various news coverage from the 1970s in newspapers.com. Also there are government sources including the National Weather Service Aude (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Ok if you hate ai using so much then why dont you fix it? The sources are okay, the tornado is notable enough. And even if you wont, you can still contact the original maker of the article to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-42180-35 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Kbbt12fais11 The process moves at the pace it moves unfortunately. Given that you've now indicated that the article was written in some respect using AI, I'd suggest you indicate which parts those are, and if there's sourcing / commentary still present that you yourself hadn't verified to be truthful which isn't; if that's the case, I'd suggest you address that relatively urgently.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Before I could close this, I'd need more clarification of the sourcing issues and whether the AI use has hallucinated references. Otherwise, couldn't this be fix by stubbing and redeveloping the article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!04:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, I am not seeing the required SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources. BJJ Heroes is a blog, and Cageside Press doesn't appear to have any editorial standards ("staff" is just a very long list of enthusiasts who have contributed articles at a flat pay rate, not paid editors and professional journalists). MMA Junkie has just a very routine, primary result recap. JoelleJay (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep (article creator). The article has been substantially rewritten and re-sourced since nomination (edits since nomination); please assess the current version.
Sourcing. Every competitive grappling claim now cites primary federation records — the IBJJF's official bracket pages (2017 No-Gi Worlds gold, 2017 World Master double gold, 2013 Worlds gold) and ADCC's qualifier list. BJJ Heroes supports only uncontroversial biographical detail, the role for which it has been the sport's standard reference for over fifteen years; nothing cited to it is contested by any source (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).
SIGCOV. Bishop-focused features and interviews from independent outlets across six years, two sports and two languages:
Context. An IBJJF world champion (eleven world-championship medals in the federation's official results) who reached the 2025 PFL world tournament final and is ranked fourth at women's flyweight (PFL rankings) in what is, following the 2026 MVP merger, one of the two major MMA promotions. Her wins include five fighters with standalone articles: Kana Watanabe, Ekaterina Shakalova, Luana Santos, Elina Kallionidou and Ariane Lipski da Silva.
The article is now current through August 2026, and incoming links have been added from related articles, so the {{Orphan}} tag no longer applies. I will leave the remaining maintenance tags for uninvolved editors to assess against the current text. Shibaking (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Blogs such as BJJ Heroes are absolutely prohibited on BLPs. Your LLM forgot to mention that key policy. Sherdog can only be used--with caution--for basic info on fighters, e.g. database-type stats, it is certainly not at the high quality we require for BLPs. MMA Planet is a pure Q&A interview, zero independent secondary coverage. Bout Review has a few sentences of secondary coverage but is almost entirely blow-by-blow primary match coverage. MMA Weekly is another interview with little secondary independent coverage. Grappling Insider is clearly not RS. ESPN is casual listicle-style hype promoting upcoming bouts broadcast by ESPN, not independent or SIGCOV. FloGrappling is a routine bout recap and doesn't seem to have published editorial standards. Fox is routine event hype with barely 2 sentences of actual coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I find it hilarious that the LLM knows that the deletion rationale is for LLM use, and yet because it can't deny not being an AI it just pretends the deletion rationale is for something entirely different. (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence)msk21:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(1) Yes, I got that, but (2) I thought that an effort to fix the issues by re-writing it by a human would cure the problem. Am I wrong? Bearian (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jishara: given Shibaking's comment above, I am pretty confident that the draft is, in fact, AI generated. Newer versions of Claude lack many of the obvious AI signs, however they still have their idiosyncrasies in referencing and formatting style, and I think that is the case here. msk04:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've definitely seen articles where the creator comments in AfD with AI but the article is 100% not ai generated - so I really don't think the creator's comments at AFD are proof or even evidence one way or another. As for the points listed in the original comment:
Large portions of the article are just original analyses of Sherdog data - yes, that's WP:OR. That isn't, however, strong AI usage evidence - countless articles are filled with OR without ever having been touched by AI
Uses nonexistent residence param in infobox - I'm looking at the infobox right now and I don't see a param like that there at all
AI-style named refs -?? that one's just so vague I have no idea what you mean
It was created on mobile editor - If it's an official wikipedia editor tool (sounds like it, though I've never heard of it) it doesn't make sense to say that creating using it makes it more likely to be AI
It was created with a nonexistent category - if you're creating articles with the categories at time of creation, i'd expect that there's a reasonable chance to have nonexistent categories until you push it out there and see whether they actually exist - i know that I didn't know how to see categories in a draft for ages upon ages.
With this level of proficiency in wikitext I would expect them to know not to cite a a blog - wikitext is very similar to a lot of other forum text styles, and learning WP:RSP usually takes longer.
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
