Doesn't seem to be notable. EDM.com and Dancing Astronaut don't seem reliable from past discussions, and what they do feels press-releasy. only source left that may possibly be reliable and independent is EDM Identity, but that's only one source and we need multiple. couldn't find anything else. article is also AI-generated and so will need to be stubbified, regardless of what happens here. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The page creator is also an admitted-paid editor for Vampa's husband. Its a bit hard to track from the edit history of their talk and user page, but they admitted so. It doesn't appear as if they disclosed it in this case. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and the related discussion here and a previous similar discussion here on Ariana Grande's talk page. the only way i could see this topic at all existing on this site is in a non-focused section of an article more generally about grande's public image (which i believe has heaps more potential for a dedicated article than her health and appearance, most of which is NOTGOSSIP), but even that's a stretch. as it stands (and, honestly, as it could ever be rewritten), a standalone article is not warranted.
also, the cultural appropration/racefishing has briefly existed on grande's article before, but it caused an edit war and a lengthy discussion on whether to include it which was seemingly decided against (as it hasn't been added back since, as far as i can tell). so both previous consensuses were obviously not considered nor seeked to be changed.
Article created and maintained by single-purpose account that has to be repeated have promotional wordings removed from new additions. Newest additions is just straight up LLM generated. New user starting an article skipping directly through AfC for the sole purpose of promoting someone - nuke and go for AfC when it's ready. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 12:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. It's all about who wrote the article. Anyone can create an article directly, AfC is optional and this one isn't even new it's been around since 2016. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's promo or LLM text it can be fixed or reverted, which was already done. Deleting a possibly notable subject because of who edited it isn't how this works, AfD isn't cleanup. On the actual question: El Espectador ran a full piece on him in 2022, though it's mostly interview. The JPost is good one but short. He was also finalist at the Montreux Jazz Festival in 2014 Placing at a major competition is one of the music criteria and Montreux seems like it counts. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Only the Hebrew source given in the comment above really helps, the first is an album review for another person and the third one isn't really independent. I don't see any sources in my search, only one concert video from a New York State performance. I'm not seeing enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
He has an established career as a jazz guitarist with a wide international reach. Well known among jazz musicians. He performed as a bandleader at Blue Note Jazz Club in NYC, Birdland, major festivals in Europe, South America, Canada. ~2026-55517-76 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Several WP:AISIGNS in this article. There's a WP:RO3 inside another RO3 in the first paragraph. The entire article for the most part was created in one edit that was made only 22 minutes after the creator's last edit (while obviously people can edit in different tabs, this is something to take note of). And even if it wasn't generated by a WP:LLM, it still comes off as WP:PROMOTIONAL, and the creator has disclosed they are a paid contributor. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment (article creator; disclosed paid contributor, see my user page): Responding to the points raised. On notability - the company has a decade of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal (2015), Financial Times (2016), The Times (2017), BBC News (2018), Reuters (2025), The New York Times (2026) and The Economist (2026), and its data has been cited in UN Security Council Panel of Experts reports. I believe this satisfies WP:NCORP. On the single-edit creation - the article was drafted and sourced offline over several weeks and many hours, and pasted as a finished draft; my paid COI was disclosed per WP:PAID before creation. Every statement is cited and was checked against its source. On tone - I'm removing trademark symbols per MOS:TM and reworded the phrasing flagged as promotional, and I welcome pointers to anything remaining. I will fix it, or any editor is welcome to. Given the extensive sourcing, I'd ask that fixable concerns be handled by editing rather than deletion (WP:ATD). BetweenTheFootnotes (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find this: , which might be WP:SIGCOV (I'm not familiar with the source). Otherwise the best I could do was (Ref. 2 in the existing article), which looks like churnalism to me. The WSJ piece (Ref. 23 in the article) might be significant. I'm leaning keep based on that, but the article is full of AI-ish puffery and superfluous sources that mention the company once while discussing completely different topics. If the previous user (the creator) could link to a non-paywalled version of the Economist piece cited in the article that would be helpful; that could be a real source although the title doesn't fill me with hope. If kept, the article needs a massive haircut. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep promising subject with coverage in The Verge, The Guardian and Amnesty Int. The coverage is profound and non-trivial. The article itself must be improved and sourced with new sources. The current links are not working Leuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage from BIRN, *The Guardian*, and Amnesty. The tech section just needs a good cleanup and trimming to remove the AI-like phrasing, but deletion is unnecessary here. Vinkovčanin (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose draftifying because there is potential for notability for this person for their awards but the article was clearly written using an LLM. The author has had similar drafts rejected due to this issue but has expressed a willingness to improve the articles. I do have concerns regarding their brief edit history. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't see notability for this young person. The UN award is fine, but a "youth advocate" isn't notable. This is typical and it's in a student newspaper regardless, so a non-RS. There isn't much sourcing to begin with, and an "advocate" this young is rarely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’ve looked into the available sources on Tariq Lawal (my subject), and I agree that the article needs work. The Global Citizen profile gives some detailed coverage of his creative work and activism, while BusinessDay and New Telegraph have also covered his involvement in youth online-safety discussions.
I understand the concerns about relying on awards and brief mentions alone. I think the article should be assessed on the quality and depth of the independent coverage, rather than on the awards by themselves. I’m willing to address the sourcing and content issues, and I would prefer draftification over deletion if the article needs more work before it is ready for the mainspace. Abrotem (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Soapboxing article that's so full of LLM-generated stuff that I can't even see anything worth rescuing. If we're TNTing this instead, then my suggestion will be to not translate the corresponding article from Russian Wikipedia but to start with our own accepted sources... 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 11:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The only portions of the text that may have been generated by an LLM are the critical sections, which rely exclusively on primary sources and violate both the principles of balanced presentation and other established Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning biographies of living persons. ~2026-55247-92 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support - Per nomanators reason. To much LLM and poor sourcing. The best way is just to redo this from ground up.
Keep. We don't delete entries because they're bad, we delete them because they're not relevant to the encyclopedia. Sloppy content can easily be identified. Should soon be deleted. None of this material is related to the compromising material our number account tries to remove from the page, based on a misreading of the guidelines.
I couldn't find reliable sources confirming the "Second French-Senussi War" as a separate conflict. The article may combine different campaigns, which looks like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. AriuCH (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose (willing to change): nomination needs verification. Article is effectively a WP:STUB per WP:STUBLENGTH (size doesn't matter); is not linked anywhere (WP:ORPHAN); and per my (cursory) research, only doesn't qualify as a WP:CFORK of Senussi Campaign because even though it quarters off the confrontations between two belligerents in a multi-combatant conflict, it technically covers materials starting before that article. However, this nomination does not seem to engage with the 11 unique sources cited in the article bibliography, and so seems too speculative to merit deletion as a specific outcome; indeed, a search found other sources supporting at minimum changes to Senussi Campaign, and which at maximum might justify this article (or another one using some of its content) existing[1]. Article definitely has a lot of issues, but it is also new, and its creator may be able to improve it (or another one). Willing to change vote if verification invalidates citations.
HiddenHistoryPedia, Are you using AI to write your responses? The sources cited so far discuss Senussi conflicts with European powers, but do not establish a distinct "Second French-Senussi War" under this title. One of the cited DOIs (Kazembeyki 2026) also returns an error. Could you provide a source that directly supports the article's title and specific claims? AriuCH (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Re, AI: A post with high school-level English does not indicate LLM use.
Re, Sources: The doi is copied from the article, so either the text is improperly OCR'd, the doi has an error, or it is fake (see here). As to the sources themselves, I reckon you should actually read what I wrote, since my reason for citing those sources seems to have been missed: "[sic] a search found other sources supporting at minimum changes to Senussi Campaign, and which at maximum might justify this article (or another one using some of its content) existing". HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Re, The Article: I never claimed that the article mentioned a "Second French-Senussi War", though I doubt that you read the whole thing in such a short time span, given it is 45 pages. I just quoted myself, so I genuinely haven't a clue how you think this is what I said.
Re, AI: With what evidence? Your best bet was that you could have claimed I hallucinated an article given a false doi, except that I just linked the article, so it's pretty obvious where I got the doi from. Don't reply to me with further AI allegations here: you're cluttering AfD. If you want to continue arguing over that, take it to my talk page. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thanks for the source review, @Fences&Windows. Assuming the sources do not exist, my vote probably changes to Delete on grounds of information not being WP:VERIFIABLE, though I was holding hope we could take some other action.
Re, "Central Africa": In good faith to the article author, the Republic of Chad is often classed as part of Central Africa, and is directly contiguous with the State of Libya. It is possible that a conflict involving a state based in Libya would extend there, which is why that didn't set off alarms... definitely strange nomenclature, though, as I don't usually see Chad classed as "Central Africa" in historical studies, and certainly not Saharan Chad. I feel like that is more based on the Chari river and such.
Oh whoops, Sealion Press is an alternate history site. This source briefly mentions fighting the French in Wadai. The article creator says the sources are in Arabic, which is why I couldn't find them searching for English titles. Fences&Windows10:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The subject's notability is unclear, as the article is little more than a stub and does not establish why the subject merits a standalone encyclopedia entry. The article also reads as though it may be AI-generated and more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic summary Sittin Courtside Teeda (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Created with an LLM in the same fashion as was discussed in this previous AfD. Per WP:NOLLM, article creation with LLMs is not allowed, and the RfC that led to NOLLM was explicit that there is no grandfathering-in of LLM-generated articles that existed before the adoption of NOLLM. There is also no provision in NOLLM to allow LLM-generated content that has been reworked by a human: generating article content with LLM is just not allowed. In this AfD I am nominating not only Wellness guru but also
Keep, evaluate individually: This nom (again) ignores WP:LLMPRVOBJ, and decides that "Actually, reversing removal of content is philosophically impossible". If you have issues with an individual article, please actually point them out. Wellness guru is the weakest of the remaining articles, and so we've been prioritizing actively working to improve it. It is rather disappointing that the nominator saw these ongoing improvements and decided to take it as an opportunity to AfD all of them at once.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per Pharos. The article nominated for deletion was being worked on, and looking at the page history, in fact there was a pretty large cleanup edit made in between the article being de-PRODded and this nomination, along with other smaller ones. This demonstrates, through action, that the article is being fixed and the LLM issues are surmountable. If users have committed to fixing the article (and crucially have demonstrated through action that they are doing it, like on this page), I don’t see why the page needs to be deleted. Nominating a page for deletion while the issues with it are actively being fixed feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The other pages can be revisited later and should be evaluated separately, but they similarly should not be deleted if the outstanding issues are surmountable and users are working to fix them, as it appears to have been expressed here. DraconicDark (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this fails NOLLM and should have been deleted already. No prejudice against someone else writing a new article on the topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn20:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep in support of comments made by Pharos and DraconicDark. The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. It contains the kind of useful information and citations that are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. The community needs to take care to support students and educators who chose to be bold in their approaches to editing. Future students should be allowed to fix this page further.--Mozucat (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. Well, no, one can immediately see that the opening sentences of the article are materially unchanged from when the article debuted in mainspace, which is true of large portions of the article body as well. Any LLM-generated content is problematic LLM-generated content, even if it is subsequently massaged by a human. WP:NOLLM, established by community consensus, simply prohibits it. Einsof (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't believe that these articles are still up and that there are people contesting their deletion. Evaluating these articles case-by-case is a waste of time. These are straightforward cases of articles that were generated by LLMs. It doesn't matter if they were created before WP:NOLLM, and it doesn't matter if they were edited afterward to remove signs of LLM usage. That doesn't change the fact that they were systematically created through LLM-generation as part of a college course. If you think Wikipedia could benefit from articles on these topics, then you might as well put in the hard work of researching these topics and writing the articles yourself. Don't rely on a tool that prioritizes quantity over quality. Lazman321 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. As well as the substantive issues pointed out on the talk page, there's also a very obvious WP:AILIST at the bottom. Also
Observers and urban planners frequently cite its success as proof of the positive impact of pedestrianisation is an example of WP:AIATTR. I'm not voting delete just yet in case someone wants to go ahead and stubbify it (or better rewrite it from scratch), because the topic does seem notable. Kisseran (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as completely LLM-generated. Thanks for the thorough run-down of LLM signs in the article. I added another on the talk page. The square may be notable, but the article can't be used as it is. Either someone should WP:STARTOVER by blanking the page and writing a stub from scratch, or if nobody has time to do that, it should be deleted and one day someone may write a new version that is authentic. Lijil (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete for the AI reasons already stated, but I don't think there should be a prejudice against remaking the article in future by an interested editor who doesn't use an LLM to do so. Turnagra (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I am the original author of the article and admit to using an LLM for research and sketching out the article. I have read the appropriate guidelines surrounding LLM use and will not use it ever again for Wikipedia-related purposes.
I believe that the article is notable. Most of the article was written by hand, but suffered from poor reference placement (which led to suspicions that there were hallucinations). I have added the correct sources in the correct locations to the best of my knowledge now, and rewritten both human and AI generated sections of text that read as promotional, flowery, or nonsensical.
I personally think that the article is still salvageable as honestly it's mostly human rather than AI slop. As the original author though I don't know if I am allowed to be the one rewriting it, as I'm not well versed in Wikipedia guidelines (hence this discussion existing in the first place)! Kika.txt (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
You are allowed to be the one rewriting it, and you are encouraged to do so. Currently, however, you are not rewriting the article, but editing the existing, AI-generated article. I would recommend that you stubbify the article (reduce it down to a single sentence or two), cite the sources that demonstrate notability, and then gradually expand the article at your own leisure. Kisseran (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello, I see what you mean, so 'rewriting' means deleting and writing from scratch, rather than paraphrasing and tweaking sections. If the article ends up being deleted, will I lose the progress on it? Could it perhaps be moved to a Draft so that I can rewrite it leisurely alongside anyone else interested, and submit it for review once good enough? Kika.txt (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
At this point, you'll have to convince the AfD participants here to vote for draftification, if you want the article to be draftified. You might wish to save the links to the sources you've gathered somewhere off-wiki, if this is deleted. Your options here are either to reduce the article down to one or two sentences and convince everyone here that what remains is both free of LLM text and demonstrates notability, or to let this article get deleted, and create a new article later. Kisseran (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I'm happy for it to be draftified as one of the delete !votes if the original author is going to work on bringing it up to scratch. I'd be happy to help where I can too. Turnagra (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The issues with the prose are not just verifiability but also close paraphrasing by the LLM. Close paraphrasing is a plagiarism issue so the text cannot simply be adjusted, it needs to be fully rewritten. I'm not against dratifying but it'd be better to rewrite the whole thing in which case the retention of the original version is unnecessary. If you plan on starting a new version from scratch a draft can be created regardless of this AfD outcome. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. The NZ Herald, Stuff, RNZ, Newsroom and The Spinoff cover the square itself, so notability holds; the LLM text and close paraphrasing are a rewrite job, not a deletion rationale. Kukuryza (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Out of the references provided only Stuff and The Spinoff (hardly a serious publication) cover the square itself. The NZ Herald and RNZ references are passing mentions. Also LLM is a valid deletion rationale, it is even a speedy deletion rationale when it is blatantly obvious. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as LLM-generated, without prejudice to a new article written from scratch. The close paraphrasing shown on the talk page means the current text cannot simply be copyedited. Miovcixi (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete This is basically an unreferenced BLP; the sources are just databases that say he exists, which are not very strong and don't indicate notability. DraconicDark (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: the topic may be notable, but LLM-written articles are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. I suggest instead adding a link to WP:REQASTRO after deletion. I've tagged it with a warning template. Praemonitus (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
AI-generated "X in Y" article, and heavy on WP:OR, with far too much reliance on primary sources, none of which discuss the topic as a cohesive whole. Rather, it's a bunch of cobbled-together mentions of the topic in disparate sources. Violates WP:NOLLM, WP:OR, and I'm getting hints of WP:NONAZIS as well, with passages like "the Quran does not command cannibalism..." WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Wow! After all these years of editing and participating in countless AfD's for almost 2 decades, this is the first time I have been called a Nazi - which clearly goes against Wiki's civility policies. Calling another editor a Nazi is not what we do here. Real Nazis will laugh hearing somene call me, of all people, a Nazi! Comment on the edits not the editor. Calling me a Nazi is totally unacceptable and goes against our policies, and I'll leave it in the capable hands of the closing Admin and other editors. I initially opened a discussion at Talk:Cannibalism in the Arab world#Tag when the article was initially tagged - and another editor and I engaged in good, honest, and respectful dialogue, and in good faith. And for the record, I am voting Keep! The article is notable and there are plenty of RS. Editorial issues are not grounds for deletion. Tamsier (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Please calm down. I didn't call you a Nazi, I said the tone and phrasing brought WP:NONAZIS to mind. And the article is almost certainly an LLM product, so the presence of sources is irrelevant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and Refideas the sourcing at Cannibalism in Asia. Principally, the author does not dispute the question of AI writing, which is pretty evident from the first sentence onwards, alongside the manner in which sources are presented (I don’t like to go more in depth than that because it just gives clues as to how they can avoid the accusation the next time around). That’s enough per WP:NEWLLM, but the fact that it’s directed at “the Arab world” doesn’t help. I find it hard to believe that someone who expressly indicates that they’re native speaker of Wolof is a Nazi in disguise, but that’s immaterial regardless. There really doesn’t need to be an article about cannibalism in [insert any ethnicity] unless it’s been shown to play a major role in that culture (whether as a present tradition (see Korowai people) or historical norm (see Asmats), which is absolutely not the case here (See WP:PAGEDECIDE).
Most of the sourcing seems to only talk about edge cases (i.e punishment for individuals found to have committed the act despite obvious cultural objection) and instances of extreme hardship (i.e periods of mass starvation, siege, etc.) where the unfortunate truth is that people had effectively no other choice (it should be made clear that in such periods, people lose the physical and psychological capacity necessary to resist their hunger drive, which is why you only hear about cannibalism in the most genuinely extreme cases). I’ll admit that I didn’t go particularly in depth in my analysis, which I feel no obligation to do given the circumstances, the nature of the events the sources are discussing see WP:SATISFY if you somehow object to that in any way), and the fact that I’m doubtful any of those I didn’t look at are going to be all too different from the rest.
I see nothing here that justifies this page’s standalone inclusion, even with reliable sources. If the author wants to use them to write it themselves, they’re welcome to do so at Cannibalism in Asia, in a setting where it’s presented with the understanding that next to no culture accepts it as normal practice, which pretty plainly isn’t implied to be the case based off the title here, regardless of what’s actually contained within the article itself. I’m gonna be really pissed if I see something like this brought up here again.
Deletion per WP:TNT. It is uncontested that a LLM has been used in the creation of this article. Some cleanup has been attempted but a quick verification of selected excerpts still shows signs of problems. ~ BlueTurtles|talk09:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This article was previously declined AfC multiple times, moved to mainspace twice, and both times was draftified by other editors for lack of notability. The correct mainspace title Susan Villa then got creation protected due to the moves, then Lau125(talk·contribs) moved it to this incorrect title in mainspace anyway. I don't think the current sources meet notability. They are either primary or nonsignificant. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
Keep Irrespective of any AI/SI contributions, which must needs be rooted out, the sourcing suggests sufficient attention to meet notability. Since this is a reissue label, the usual WP:MUSIC assessment based on roster isn't really appropriate here, but based on GNG-style assessment, it'd pass. Chubbles (talk) 21:51, 10 October 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.
Delete I'm not voting merge, because the protest isn't even notable enough to reserve the name just to redirect to the main article and also the title is wrong, it uses "protests" when its really a single protest, I think the user created it in anticipation of more protests. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The proposed destination article is also proposed for a merge. Do we really need to merge this? ie, do we need to retain this content? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
The topic is clearly notable, even though I must say the amount of sources I've found, at least after some quick searches, is certainly underwhelming for such a deadly event. Nevertheless, to me this article seems clearly generated by AI at least to an extent. It is obvious considering the egregious mistypings present in the article, such as "Averudul" (Adevărul) and "Zalea Condreanu" ((Corneliu) Zelea Codreanu). These are some pretty strange typos for a human to make. And of course, there's also the seventh reference's link, containing the following: "&st_source=ai_overview&r=0.185,0.112,0.315,0.397,0".
The article is relatively short. It could therefore be saved relatively easily. The entire text and all cited sources should be manually checked to ensure the information in this article is verified, with everything not verifiable being promptly removed. The article would also require some slight NPOV language improvements. This AfD might attract someone willing to put this effort. I personally am not, because it is not possible to do so for every new AI slop article popping out, and it is also the burden only and exclusively of the article's author. Because such a person appearing is not a guarantee, I propose moving this out of mainspace for now.
Keep per Kowal2701 and my own comments at the AINB thread. Typos alone are already a sign of human-written text, not AI-written text, and those typos highlighted in the nom seem particularly human. Kisseran (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
AI isn't prone to making typos, most of my typo's admittedly come basically from me misremembering some name in my head and typing that misremembered version into the article. I don't think its too unusual for someone to remember a name in a language they don't speak imperfectly, especially since many of those mistakes line up with English phonology, for instance many English words have an "nd" (band, sand, land, canned etc.) sound in them so my brain misremembered Codreanu as Condreanu. I misremembered Zelea as Zalea because I pronounce Zelea as zuh-lee-uh, which under English spelling would be written as Zalea. The name Maria is pronounced muh-ree-uh, and is spelling maria so my brain just defaulted to applying those same rules to a Romanian name.
I do often use AI's to search for sources but I do also search myself and using AI's to find sources is completely allowed, and when I use AI's to find a source I check the source myself to make sure they're reliable. I NEVER use AI as a source. Denninithan (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep there's no problem with using AIs to find sources, and the typos you listed are pretty much definitive proof that this isn't AI generated - that's not something an AI would do, but that's something a human might do with complicated/unfamiliar names. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:52, 9 October 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.
Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Paramount Primal is a genre label of Paramount Pictures that was named in July 2026. The only source is a syndicated Variety report on a Nightmare on Elm Street deal, which mentions the label and its two heads in a few sentences. The content fits as a short section of Paramount Pictures until the label receives significant coverage. Ell Pollar (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: unrelated to the nominator's concerns, this was tagged by someone else as having been pasted from an LLM. That might make a straight merge less appealing; I don't think we can rule out a TNT deletion, adding human-written material about this label to Paramount Pictures, and simply creating a fresh redirect afterward. (No formal opinion on the matter.). WCQuidditch☎✎00:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
We shouldn’t merge it because there is more stuff on the page and just like Warner Bros. Clockwork, they haven’t released any movies yet but has some info about the company Low-gee7212014 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge As with anything involving this deal, I prefer to wait and see if they decide that even putting further effort into a film label that doesn't even have a film out in the market yet is worth it, if the films even come out or become regular old studio releases, or they get shoved off onto VOD or streaming. Nathannah • 📮23:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see consensus against a standalone, but is there anything worth merging? The LLM concerns haven't been much discussed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose merging, or redirecting to Symbiosis. This page seems largely AI generated (bulleted points, referencing Wikipedia itself) - GPTZero believes the final paragraph alone is 100% AI, which does not surprise me. The topic which it covers would easily be covered by the subject of 'Interspecific interactions', which is a redirect to Symbiosis. Sevenstxrsquid🌊06:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete:Symbiosis already covers the topic better than this; if the article is indeed WP:LLM-generated then it could actually be speedy-deleted. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging, and the title is long and wobbly, not an ideal search term (but I wouldn't oppose a delete-then-redirect if that's what folks want: we certainly don't want to preserve the text for future resurrections). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Having read the symbiosis article, it is clear to me that they have very little in common. However, I take your point on the wobbliness of the title. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I reacted too quickly. The articles do have a lot in common. I take your point. Probably if I had read this article I would not have written Interspecific interactions. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
PS. This article started out with the title ‘Pet keeping by animals’. As I got into the subject, matter I decided I didn’t like that angle, so I repositioned in a way that resulted in more overlap with Symbiosis. The overlap is not complete (eg. the Symbiosis article doesn’t discuss play, the second most important interaction for primates. Also, I didn’t see any discussion of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, the overlap is considerable. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE: I am having second thoughts about overlap with Symbiosis, though I do not deny that such overlap exists — overlapping is not the same thing as redundant. The approach of symbiosis article is to list the different types of symbiosis and then to provide relatively simple examples (lichens, fungus, seed dispersal, mites, etc.). This is useful from a pedagogical standpoint, but it hides the complexities of ‘higher’ social animals such as primates. The Interspecific social interactions article describes primate behaviors such play, caregiving, carrying, affiliative behaviour (such as grooming which is not covered in the same way in the Symbiosis article’s section on cleaning symbiosis). Ultimately, the understanding of how these behaviors are anchored in the concepts of evolutionary biology will be elucidated, but it is a bit early to assert, given the present state of knowledge, that they can all be reduced to symbiosis. For this reason, I have revised the article to focus only on primates. The title of the article has been changed accordingly. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I will describe my procedure in writing this article and let the Wikipedia community decide if it is Kosher. The article did originate from an AI-assisted draft, but I subsequent researched, expanded and sourced it. This process started out with me finding all of the fifteen references, all of which I read. I then substantially rewrote the text. I would estimate that I changed about half the words of the original draft (I did a rough text comparison). All the section titles are mine as are the bullet points (sorry GPTZERO, but you’re wrong!). The Wikipedia article cited at the top of the references section is to give credit for o the authors of the alloparenting article. This revision process took many hours and I now regard it as a team effort between me and ChatGPT. I stand by every word in this article — it contains no hallucinations. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge with Interspecies friendship. I think there could be discussion on the best name to use (and the section about humans' pets should be removed), but the subjects of these two articles seem to be closely related. These are not at all the same as symbiosis, which is a long-term relationship associated with evolution. Reywas92Talk18:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the article creator already mentioned that they moved it to Interspecific social behaviour in primates. I reiterate this in a bolded comment in part to formally link to the new title, but moreso to emphasize that moving pages during any AfD discussion (even if just a merge proposal) is generally frowned upon. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎19:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep this page or merge it with Interspecies friendship into Interspecific social behaviour per and , for example. The key words are "social behavior". No merge to Symbiosis please because it is a wider and partly different subject (the symbiosis typically assume a permanent/long-term physical coexistence of different species, which is not necessarily the case here, e.g. the "friendship" of cat and mouse does happen, but a social behavior). My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify or Outright Delete as it's clearly AI generated and I'm getting sick and tired of having to gauge how far I'm willing to go to resist WP:NOLLM because it's encyclopedic content. The more we let stuff like this get through, the more difficult it gets down the road for us to determine when someone couldn't be bothered to do a simple rewrite. Wikipedia is a work in progress, if people are inspired by the sourcing present they can collect it and try again. I'm not handing over the value of one of my and tens of thousands of other peoples' greatest gifts to Sam Altman so that someone else, who felt it unnecessary to take the time to learn how to write content here, will get the chance to get that warm, fuzzy feeling that they're advancing the race by taking credit for output produced by a machine.
I think it should be noted that absolutely nothing here should be merged without a substantial copyedit to remove anything that sniffs of LLM-produced content.
I object to your accusations, CSGinger. This article started out as a AI answer to a question on pet keeping by animals. I ended up not liking that angle. To repeat what I said above, I then did the following: 1. I found and read all of the references; 2. I redrafted it to focus on general social relations among animals (subsequently narrowed to only primates). To assert that this article is “clearly AI generated” is unfair. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Dr Dobeaucoup I do genuinely apologize for the harsh language, as I was extremely angry at something else here at the time I wrote that reply (see my most recent user page edit if you’re curious, and thus will concede that I should have taken some time to breathe before getting involved here or elsewhere this evening; nevertheless, I’m still greatly concerned by the prose as it stands, which still reads very similar to what you would see in a typical line of reasoning offered by an LLM (e.g. seemingly attempting to answer a question not directly posed in the text, bulleting lists as opposed to exploring each in an individual section, etc.), even if you reframed it in a more personal style. That’s my concern.
I do believe that you did as you say, because there are parts that read far more natural than others. The problem is, when you ask AI to generate anything for you, you’re going to rely on its style and structuring even if you don’t realize it. We cannot let that proliferate here, because then literally what is the point of what we’re doing. People don’t need us when they can just get AI to answer the question for them, especially if we end up just regurgitating what AI has already said to give its answer a slightly wider audience. Even if we make it somewhat more accessible, it’s just as easy to go type the prompt in to ChatGPT. The only difference is that ours is a stable version that doesn’t shift depending on the way you ask the question. If you can indicate that you fundamentally changed the text from the original answer to the prompt, I’ll happily strike the comment above. Otherwise I remain grounded in my view of things.
Thanks for getting back to me. I fundamentally changed the text, and the logic and flow of the article are entirely mine. However, there are still sentences that are AI generated. I would estimate that, in the current version, about 30-40% of the words are AI generated. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete as LLM output, or merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This appears to be an LLM article creation with some typical WP:AISIGNS including WP:AIDASH and WP:AITREND (
As a result, spall strength research continues to evolve at the intersection of materials science, mechanics, and data-driven engineering.). See the original submission. It hasn't had any substantial edits since article creation (mostly citation clean up, link clean up, and fixing section header casing). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete or very limited merge to Spallation or Spall (as in, just the first paragraph at most). The topic is notable, but the article is too detailed for a general audience, and violates WP:NOLLM. All the sources I checked are good, but it's your classic LLM-drafted technical article: A "history" section that cites a couple of off-topic passing mentions, a grab bag of applications each sourced to a stack of primary papers, and a "current research" or similar section that reads like engineering firm PR. Yuck. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM was used solely for Wikipedia formatting, not content generation. I’m not understanding your claim of over reliance on em dash use, as there is only one instance of their use in the article. Happy to concede that it gets a bit technical for a general audience, but so do many articles about niche properties (see acoustoelastic effect).
I understand a push to merge, but looking at similar cases of a property that is behind a phenomenon (such as Fatigue limit and fatigue), makes it seem that this is not necessary. Ewint6 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails NOLLM. The dab link in the first revision is also telling, I find it implausible that someone would have written the LaTeX formulae with completely correct syntax but not link [[ballistics|ballistic]] correctly. This is not enough to convince me on its own, but it is an additional sign that I considered in totality with the rest of the other signs present on the page. There are some things that lead me to believe that this is probably not a wholesale generation, but the text has clearly passed through an LLM at some point. ‑‑gurkubondinn10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. A redirect or a smerge would be an acceptable outcome for LLM cases, I think, but anyone is free to correct me. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – spall strength is a standard concept in shock physics, and the article cites 37 distinct sources in the journal literature. How the text was drafted is a cleanup matter: WP:NOLLM is not a notability criterion and WP:ATD applies. Kukuryza (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I did a news search in Arabic which came up with a couple of fairly perfunctory obituaries and nothing else, unfortunately With lots of false hits to partial matches. My impression is he may have been notable but I can’t spend the time digging through false positives to be sure. Given the lack of genuinely independent sourcing in the current article I’d suggest stripping a lot of the content out as even if the subject is notable overall I don’t think we’ll find independent sources for all this content. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to OpenAI, specifically the section about agents. LLM-generated content can be cleaned up, so I'm not particularly concerned about that. However, given that this has been folded into OpenAI's agents feature, this content would best be suited there instead of a separate article. There is some significant coverage of the topic, but at this point I think it would be difficult to write more than a stub, so merging is probably best. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to ChatGPT#Agents as a more precise target. I agree with the reasoning by HyperAccelerated. The article, while containing independent coverage, is mostly sourced to OpenAI and sometimes fails verification, for example,
In July 2025, ChatGPT was announced. This agent contains Operator's browser control capabilities. Operator was retired at the end of August 2025 is sourced to Introducing Operator from January 2025. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft deletion due to previous PROD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Agree with this. Unless Wreaderick has made significant changes in the meantime, there's no reason to keep LLM content saved just because it happened to be written into a justified redirect.
Hi, forgive me for forgetting to work on this article. I’ll do some substantial work on it today, hopefully removing all that the AI wrote. Wreaderick (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The page was intentionally created as a timeline of banking in Malta.
The brief introduction introduces the subject and provides context for the timeline, directing readers to the main article on history of banking and to a scholarly source covering the wider history of banking.
All entries in the timeline were compiled from published material on the history of banking in Malta and cross-referenced against relevant sources. The individual historical facts are also referenced to their sources.
LLM-generated content isn't allowed even if it is used to create a brief introduction.
The timeline section constitutes OR because it was compiled by the author from primary sources. The problem is that it is the author who chooses which facts to include and which to omit. Vgbypw (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If there is an issue with the introduction, it can be rewritten. The fundamental issue seems to be the timeline itself. The timeline is based on an academic paper by John Consiglio (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/88410 which is considered to be the first article on the subject) and a book by Uwe Jens Rudolf (https://dokumen.pub/historical-dictionary-of-malta-153811917x-9781538119174.html). Presenting historical events in a basic chronological list should not be considered as primary research. The "research" was linking the list to all other Wikipedia pages on Malta banks and adding additional references to the events to justify their inclusion in the timeline. I don't agree that the contents of this page is original research. The discussion should rather focus on ways to improve it XonMalti (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
In the past I received feedback that some sentences did not use a formal or objective tone as per Wikipedia guidelines. So I did run the introduction through AI tools to set a more academic tone. The end result is a mix of my own writing enhanced with AI suggestions. I feel the end result still reflected the source article as well as introducing the subject. However, so far there has been no constructive feedback on how to improve the introduction.
Timeline:
The chronological entries were extracted manually, noting down the key dates whilst reading the sources mentioned above. The timeline was collated over a year and a half whilst drafting another page. Once published, the feedback received was to offload certain sections to subsidiary pages; hence, this Wikipedia page.
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Keep The topic is obviously notable. Timelines are not OR, we even have MOS:TIMELINE. The lead is indeed ORish and AI assisted, but it should be easy to clean up as the bulk of the page is a sourced timeline. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Obviously a notable topic, but the use of AI means I don't trust the accuracy of the article because of potential hallucinatory text. Best to WP:TNT this and start over with an editor(s) not using LLM.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
To repeat – The introduction is a summary of a very good academic article done by myself. It then went through AI to improve academic English, neutral tone etc. It has since be written again so there is no AI. XonMalti (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to List of banks in Malta: rewritten to remove LLM and OR, in a new History section. After the merge, the page should be title-swapped with Banking in Malta, which is currently a redir to it.
A single, cohesive article about banking in Malta, with history and list of banks, would serve readers best. Owen×☎19:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I have a comprehensive Draft:Banking in Malta which got shot down amongst others because it was too large. One of the recommendations was to have specific articles going into specific areas. Hence this article. List of banks in Malta in Malta is written by another author, focusing mainly on current Maltese banks subject to EU supervision. As explained further up the timeline itself is not OR! I don't agree there is any LLM and OR in the current version. XonMalti (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
There is no LLM-generated opening and no OR. I feel this discussion is going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I invite anyone to pinpoint any specific text which is deemed problematic. XonMalti (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@XonMalti Well for starters the fact that there’s an entire paragraph of the lede devoted to a general overview of the history of the banking industry itself. Even if you did write it yourself it’s plainly original research (not in the sense that it’s necessarily incorrect, but that it’s entirely unnecessary to have here). I’d like to believe it was a simple mistake on your part, but the fact that concerns raised about it don’t make it glaringly obvious to you that some explanation is in order for that material specifically doesn’t help.
Potentially LLM written article that's mostly just an essay about a vague and broad topic instead of an article about a well established concept. "Immigrant entrepreneurship" can be anything. Cubnorth (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep with reduction. Immigrant entrepreneurship is a widely accepted term and the subject of a substantial body of academic research. I rewrote the article in my sandbox, simplifying the prose and reducing its length by more than 50%, then replaced the live article. I also added a definition section to help clarify the concept. I believe the revised version addresses the concerns raised and is much more conducive to other editors expanding, restructuring, or rewriting the article as needed. The subject is specifically studied and tracked by organisations including the OECD, which includes a dedicated section of its International Migration Outlook 2 to the subject, and is the focus of a specific chapter in Elsevier's Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, among many other major academic publications. This is precisely the type of significant subject that Wikipedia should include. Its prominence can be quickly verified through searches of Google and JSTOR.
Wikipedia contains many obscure subjects that may legitimately warrant articles, but this is an established and important area of study that deserves inclusion because of it encompases such a broad range. The sources I have provided are all strong academic publications devoted again specifically to the subject. Even the source provided by ladmc, the German Historical Institute's Immigrant Entrepreneurship project covering immigrant entrepreneurship in American history broadly, reinforces the importance and established use of the term.
That said, although I am strongly opposed to LLM generated content, I recognise that my writing style may resonate with this issue. My writing also tends toward an essay style, which is something I have done professionally since long before AI existed and is a legitimate complaint by other editors. I am trying to work this out of my writing in general. I believe this may be partly because I develop highly polished articles. I made nearly 300 edits on Wikipedia developing this article, (not what you find in LLM generated content) and probably an equal amount of the work was done outside Wikipedia because I find it considerably easier to structure, move material around that way.
My proposed solution is the normal one for a notable subject where the article faces such concerns, that is to substantially reduce it. Over the next few days, during this discussion, I intend to shorten the prose considerably, probably by about half, while retaining as much of the existing structure and sourcing as possible.
One problem on Wikipedia is that articles can grow through incremental additions until they become sprawling and unorganised. I would like to leave this article with well developed structure but limited prose that makes it conducive to future contributions by other editors, while retaining the substantial academic sourcing that provides a foundation for future expansion. This is an approach I plan on taking in all of my future writing, limited prose with strong structure.
I want to elaborate a little more as the nominator. There is no one unique thing that ties the information in this article together except for 'immigrants can be entrepreneurs'. This means that in my opinion, that's all the article is really saying. If the observations that followed were conclusive and uniform, then I'd understand a bit more, but as it stands almost all of them boils down to 'it varies', which is obvious. I respect that this is an area of interest for you, but as it stands I believe this topic is far too broad to be a useful article. Cubnorth (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand the concern that the subject is broad, but I think that breadth is also what makes it valuable as an encyclopedia topic. Wikipedia benefits when it covers important central concepts, not just narrowly defined subjects. The study of immigrant entrepreneurship has considerable importance within sociology and social economics, which is why there is such substantial academic literature devoted to it.
The difficulty for me has been presenting the body of material without turning the article into an essay or adding my own synthesis. I could write a more cohesive argument connecting the research, but that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The article needs to be built from what the sources actually say, which can make it difficult to present the material cohesively.
At the same time, I am addressing the perception of LLM-assisted writing in the typical manner, by substantially reducing the prose and making the article more direct and source-focused. This often works against your concern, since reducing the prose can also make it harder to explain the connections among the research. I will post a rewritten version in the next few hours.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think this is a case where creative editing and restructuring can solve the problems. It would be a shame to lose an important area of study that belongs in an encyclopedia when the underlying subject and sourcing are very strong.JondeJon1 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I did try and shorten the article substantially to alleviate LLM concerns which is a common way to deal with these problems, it also addressed my tendency towards writing essays. It would be a shame to lose a good topic well sourced by academic citations.JondeJon1 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment On a path forward: if the consensus is that the current article does not meet mainspace standards, I would ask that it be moved to draft space rather than deleted outright. This would allow me to reduce it to a stub, which is the standard remediation for articles with suspected LLM content, and to resubmit it through the Articles for Creation process. On the merge suggestion: merging with Middleman minority or Model minority would not be appropriate. Both of those are subsections of the broader topic of immigrant entrepreneurship rather than equivalent or parent concepts. JondeJon1 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – this is an established research field with literature in Oxford University Press journals, NBER working papers and OECD reports, all cited in the article. Breadth is an editing problem, not grounds for deletion. Kukuryza (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Frankly if both the suggested articles are subtopics within it then I'd argue we can use their notability to establish its. The notion of immigrant entrepreneurship necessarily derives from the sources that discuss them [referenced destination pages], and I know for a fact the topic is covered at length elsewhere. It's half the justification in the West for allowing in migrants/refugees (y'know, other than the fact that they're human beings and the notion of state boundaries is entirely arbitrary).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's currently a rough consensus that this article falls short of notability guidelines, but there remains disagreement as to whether any of the content is salvageable through a merge. Further discussion as to whether a merge is worthwhile is encouraged; new participants are also welcome to make additional arguments towards keeping the article outright if they so choose Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk19:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this fails NOLLM and any concerns about the notability are secondary. The AI user is avoiding saying outright that this is LLM-generated, and just talking around it with vague non-answers. If there's anyone that can say with certainty it is the account that has submitted it, but instead they are talking as if they can't possibly know. Just delete this, someone else is free to try to write a new article about this topic if they want to and can establish the notability of the topic. Lets not waste more time on this than we need to. ‑‑gurkubondinn20:03, 15 October 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.
Wiki-revisor - Claude-based diagnostic assistant that checks Spanish Wikipedia articles against the Manual of Style and reports issues for human editors to fix; it does not write or rewrite article text. WIP
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
