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.
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
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
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
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
No substantial coverage in reliable, independent historical sources has been identified. The article relies mainly on local sources and contains numerous unsupported historical claims. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨09:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The nominator's main concern is what is on the article and what is not. Also, not all source on the article are from local outlets. And the reason "unsupported historical claims" is quite unclear. So you know, the nominator's argument is more questionable here. Mehedi Abedin15:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And I found another source, "Samsad Bangla Charitabhidhan" (1976) page 214, it is a biography encyclopedia published from West Bengal, India. It is surely an important reliable secondary source. I wonder how the nominator missed that. It seems the user is inexperienced (his account's age is 5 months). To me, it is clear that we can close this AFD. Mehedi Abedin15:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - dunno much about Bengali sources but I see citations from like 5-7 different news orgs on the page. Is the nom worry that none of them are reliable (they're obvs independent imo, given this is a 18th century figure)? Would nom mind explaining why they're not RSs? A GScholar query for "Devi Chadhurani" brings up mostly a Sarala Devi Chaudhurani of 1872-1945, but a query for "Devi Chadhurani" -Sarala brings up someone who seemingly sounds like this figure (cursory skim). At first glance I'd be inclined to !vote keep, as person seems notable and is seemingly discussed in scholarly sources:/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing NOLLM, it was created with an AIREDCAT and the users other edits and submissions make this evident enough to not really need a deeper analysis. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as WP:LLMPROD. I was actually sceptical for a moment, thinking the first version's awkwardness seemed like a human one, but considering the principal editor's editing pattern it's pretty clear this is most likely LLM-generated. Regarding notability, it doesn't seem unlikely that this person is notable. I could only find one (offline) scholarly source with a brief search, which I'm hoping to have a look at soon, but it does seem likely that a lot more will be found by someone with India-specific expertise. In any case, though, the LLM stuff needs to go so this can hopefully be rewritten with better sources. --Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:28, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
For anyone who might want to write about this, the article is: Atis Dasgupta, "Devi Chaudhurani: Glimpses from the fakir and sannyasi uprisings". Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. 54, issue 4, Kolkata 2012, pp. 51–60. The level of detail about Devi's life is less than one would hope based on the title, but it's definitely one more source towards notability. I think I'll scan the article in the near future so if anyone wants a PDF, just e-mail me. It seems the same author has also written a book titled The Fakir and Sannyasi Uprisings. I don't have easy access to it, but one could expect it would also contain relevant information, as Dasgupta has mentioned Devi as an important figure in other papers on the uprisings as well. --Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)19:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM output reliant entirely on a student's thesis and an encyclopedia entry (unable to find specific entry, but adjacent entries aren't entirely convincing insofar as being a WP:RS). Could find nothing in terms of reviews, nor much about its supposed translator Ciaran Leonard. Fails WP:NBOOK, and should probably be deleted or redirect to the author's page. /over.throws/✎14:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Your arguments for deletion do not seem very accurate to me. Do you believe a novel praised in a letter by Sir Tom Stoppard is irrelevant? Incidentally, the letter included in the original file was removed by editors for no real reason. As for the claim that the article was AI-generated, simply run it through detection tools and you will see that it was not. Please reconsider your arguments. REVERSOR25 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The first one was just illustrative with Tom Stoppard's text because I hadn't managed to get the letter and only had the original text, and I wanted to illustrate the article. The second one is already the real letter, as any image detector with legitimacy can confirm; in fact, the only detector that has any legitimacy to do this is Pangram. (https://www.pangram.com/), you can check it there. And, apparently, the book was read by Stoppard in 1986. Besides, I guarantee you asked AI and it presented this discrepancy between the dates because I did it myself. The fact that the book was available in English only in 2022 doesn't mean Stoppard didn't read it in 1986, as the letter confirms. I put the letter on Pangram myself to see if it was real, and it is!REVERSOR25 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Setting aside the possibility I'm feeding a troll at the moment (because how could Stoppard have referred to p. 193 of an edition that would not exist for 36 years), it would hardly constitute WP:RS. To return to the argument about notability: as the page stands now, one is a database entry (insignificant), and two refer to theses that treat the author's work as a whole instead of the book as its own. Pereira's paper is good, but Mendonça's treatise is too brief. I would not mind a redirect to the author, but I would not confidently argue that the existing sources are sufficient to keep the article up. /over.throws/✎20:57, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I’m not a troll. I’m a registered user with a verified email. But I didn't quite understand the point raised about page 193. If the book was released in 1984 and he read it in 1986—whether the author sent it to him or he had the original copy (after all, it seems they were friends and fellow playwrights)—where exactly is the problem? Furthermore, the major reference regarding the novel is Itaú Cultural. Itaú Cultural is Brazil's leading cultural institution, maintained by Latin America's largest bank, Itaú. That said, I don't see much point in the entry being attached to the author's page. If that’s how it has to be—without the book having its own dedicated page—then, depending on the community's decision, it might be better to just delete it. Best regards; I did my best for Wikipedia with this first article. I just hope that with the other articles I intend (or intended) to create, I won't have to go through this again, because it’s disheartening. REVERSOR25 (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You didn't check, you don't know what it's about, and yet you're asking for the article to be deleted? Oh, please. Given the number of your nominations currently "on hold"—as evidenced on your page—this nomination strikes me as an act of retaliation rather than something encyclopedic. This isn't a circus... REVERSOR25 (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@REVERSOR25: Please turn down the temperature on your replies here. Calling our arguments slanderous, or making unfounded claims of retaliation, is not helping. It's best we stay on the topic of notability. /over.throws/✎00:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to the obvious LLM problems, I can't find any evidence of coverage for WP:NBOOK. I did some web searching in English and Portuguese (assisted by machine translation) and checked Newspapers.com. It's possible that there were reviews in 1980s Portuguese newspapers that I don't know how to find, but in the absence of such evidence of notability, there's no need to start over after the TNT. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:42, 22 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
:Keep. I don't think the nomination shows a failure of WP:GNG. Crișana Oradea has independent historical coverage, not just database entries. CA Oradea's own historical articles discuss Crișana as one of its main interwar rivals, including its foundation in 1929, its role in Oradea football and the distinction between the original club and CAO's later use of the name. FC Bihor's historical material also discusses Crișana separately, including its formation and foreign tour.
Per WP:NEXIST, notability depends on whether suitable sources exist, not on how well the current article is sourced. Also, failing a subject-specific sports guideline does not automatically mean failing GNG.
The club also had substantial sporting history: regional titles, several seasons in the national top flight, and a clear role in the history of football in Oradea. This looks like a case for improving the article and its sourcing, not deleting it. Vladraresfilip (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Editor Blocked for WP:LLMDISRUPTBengalMCtalk13:05, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. As a municipal elected official, she is not automatically notable under WP:NPOL and does not appear to have received significant coverage. The information on the page, to the extent it is verifiable, looks self-promotional. PA Uploader (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Despite the mentioned issues, I can’t find the editorial policy for a lot of these sources. However I do admit that my Vietnamese is not good at all. TansoShoshen (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
if you admit that your Vietnamese is no good, then why you keep debating on the sources of the article many of which are all in Vietnamese? and based on what criteria that you doubt my work is AI influenced? Justazen (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
my friend wrote the whole work in Vietnamese then use Google Translate to help translate it to English. based on what criteria you said it was AI-generated? meanwhile the article has been on internet for about a year, which may influence many AI-generated publications later. so what are you trying to prove? Justazen (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - Thanks for making this nomination and to Sibshops for adding notability tag. I agree, it is unsuitable for Wikipedia in this state, and, unlike a couple other pages started by the same author, in my view unsalvageable. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect would be a good outcome imo. The upside to deletion is that the LLM-generated version can't be restored from the page history, and a redirect can always be created after the deletion. But I have no objections to converting the current page into a redirect. ‑‑gurkubondinn23:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Would prefer delete, but also happy with a redirect outcome (and deletion should not be an impediment to creating a new redirect). ‑‑gurkubondinn11:32, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, as I can rewrite the article with sufficient citations and proper, non-AI structure. It can be unfolded as an equivalent or bigger event to precendences like Emirates Flight 407, so it is not "non-notable".
Fair enough. We would wipe its history and then rewrite it with unfolding reports. This article is full of AI slops synthesized from an amount of informal discussion Hwi.padam08:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The user who made the article is notoriously pro-AI and has defended AI-generated content. It's best not to give more attention into it. Stmbus (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Vietnam Airlines as WP is not a newspaper and there is no reasonable expectation of a lasting effect from this incident.
Redirect to Vietnam Airlines because this is a notable incident for the airline itself, but doesn't deserve its own page. Tail strikes do happen and so do overruns. But those incidents, like DHL Flight 2212 and Enugu Air Flight 4264, didn't get their own page since they are RUN-OF-THE-MILL incidents and will happen once in a while, like Vietnam Flight 34.
Delete. Not notable in any way, as a run of the mill incident with no verifiable lasting change to industry or procedures, no hull loss - only really immediate news coverage. Danners430tweaks made09:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, then redirect - Far WP:TOOSOON to determine if this incident will have any lasting coverage. I say delete first to remove the LLM-generated content from the history. - ZLEATǀC02:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
On English Wikipedia, guys, they're very strict about LLM-generated content, so the article will have to be deleted. I should note that the article can most likely be rewritten, as some analysis is already starting to emerge . shiningr3ds (talk)08:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, then redirect for now - delete first to remove the LLM history. Given how close this got to disaster, it is possible that this will eventually warrant its own standalone article, especially if it leads to lasting changes to the industry or procedures akin to other near-disasters such as Emirates Flight 407 or Air Canada Flight 759, but that remains to be seen. ECTran71 (talk)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article appears highly promotional and is mainly sourced to the company or to websites which sell products of this kind and are therefore not independent. It has been tagged for lack of independent sources since 2021. M kuhner (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, a company about which much has been written over the years, definitely notable for an article. Most of the current article isn't promotional, but the big exception is the "Baumatic movement". If you actually read reference 16, the one in Caliber Corner (amusingly cited as "Corner, Caliber"), you'll find it's utterly scathing, pouring scorn on a lot of the nomenclature, aims and claims, and hinting darkly that the movements might not be as in-house as we're led to believe. The problem I've got is that I don't know if Caliber Corner is anything more than an opinion hosting site with some guy's slightly poisonous blog, so I don't feel able to use it to write negative things about Baume et Mercier any more than to support positive things. Maybe this paragraph should be deleted? But keep the basic article. Elemimele (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Origin theories of Christopher Columbus#Crypto-Judaism hypothesis. Part of the article is AI-generated with fake references (see this AINB discussion) and part of the article consists of copy-pasted text from the Origin theories article without attribution. The article is somewhat written like an essay and covers approximately the same content as the corresponding section in Origin theories, where the topic is summarized pretty competently. No discussion seems to have occurred regarding splitting the topic into its own article. I believe delete over merge would be appropriate given the close overlap in content combined with AI text remaining from earlier drafts and heavy unattributed copying in the current article. purringmaggot (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. An unnecessary fork. As I noted in the AINB discussion, the existing 'origin theories' article covers this topic in considerably more detail than this fork does. There doesn't appear to be anything worth merging back. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. In fact I think speedy deletion would arguably be justifiable, both as an unnecessary duplicate article & as inadequately reviewed AI-generated material. There is no good reason for selecting this one subtopic of Origin theories of Christopher Columbus for special treatment, that article is better written than this one, this article is to some extent written like a personal essay, including opinions and judgements, and there are problems such as hallucinated references and unattributed copying. There is no benefit in keeping this article, and there are several good reasons not to keep it. JBW (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - Given the unanimous consensus here and on the LLM noticeboard thus far and the fictional reference to an invented The Guardian article, I don't see why this isn't a straightforward WP:G15bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖23:30, 20 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
Most likely an AI-generated autobiography that did not go through AfC.
Created in January 2026 as User:Bidy1975 in Diff/1333715158 with no references, multiple WP:AILIST, WP:AIBOLD and some WP:AILEGACY. Then faux-inline references were added in Diff/1334030965 and Diff/1334034383, none of which seem to establish much notability other than showing that he is on some editorial boards. One is his CV, which had already been linked previously when a bunch of external links were added. There is WP:AITREND and WP:SUPERFICIAL analysis in Diff/1334034383, and undue emphasis on importance (form of AILEGACY) in Diff/1334044275, Diff/1334044777, and Diff/1334045416. The statement in Diff/1334045841 that he received his Ph.D.... under the supervision of... Asim Kis is sourced to his CV and somehow fails verification, because the CV doesn't say who supervised his Ph.D. (but lists a "Visva Bharati" in parenthesis).
I already left a note below, but: is it inappropriate for me to be skeptical of his FRSC designation? Is the Royal Society known for omitting fellows from its own announcements/databases? -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is your 4th edit, and for some reason, your past 3 edits were contributions to this nominated article about Bidyut Saha, does this have a relation? Babin Mew (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This article does not seem to pass notability for me. The sources about this person are very limited, which are not helped by the LLM tone and non-significant sources present in the article. I don't see a reason to draftify subject not notable to be included. Babin Mew (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd expect the subject to meet WP:NPROF if he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, but I am having difficulty finding any sources (like the Society's regular announcements of new fellows) that provides evidence of such. His positions on editorial boards (not as senior or chief positions) and h-index of 12 in a high-citation field do not contribute towards the other notability criteria. This reads as a CV and would need a complete rewrite anyway. I am leaning delete. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:16, 17 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.
Lacks inline sources, and seems to claim that he begin to work as a bandeoneonist freelancer at the age of eight. The sourcing that is there seems thin.
The article has been a recent target for LLM edits from a TA (that have all been reverted, but that is how I found this article). ‑‑gurkubondinn15:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I did some work cutting down unsourced material, and that with a promotional tone, from the article before it came to AfD. I haven't had time yet to go through all the external links and see if there is any additional coverage; I will do that and return here with an !vote. But in the meantime, if anyone wants to look at the longer version of the article to see if they find evidence of notability, it is here. Tacyarg (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. When I first read the article, the peacock prose (and the eight-year-old freelancing) made it hard to assess notability. I've now been through all the external links and written them up on the article's Talk page. Several of them are reliable sources, but only one meets all of significant coverage, not an interview, and an RS. I'm still on the fence as haven't done any searching outside the article yet. I'll come back when I have, unless other editors have reached a consensus by then. Tacyarg (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just let me know. My concern isn't to keep an article about this person out of the encyclopaedia, I just didn't think that the specific article that I saw should be in the encyclopaedia. If you're satisfied with it after your work, then I think that it should stay. Just ping me here (so I'll get a notification) or write on my talk, and I'll pull this AfD if you have an article you think should stay. ‑‑gurkubondinn19:59, 11 August 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
