Chatbots (and the large language models that power them) have become very popular; they can often output material much faster than humans can. Unfortunately, they cannot write as well as humans (yet), and their output is prone to hallucinations, false citations, and other errors. This has created a major cleanup burden at Wikipedia, as many editors (especially new ones) try their hand at using artificial intelligence to edit Wikipedia. You can help by identifying AI-written text, removing unsourced or inaccurate claims, and by identifying AI-generated images. For more information, see our AI Cleanup Guide.
Comment: unrelated to the nominator's concerns, this has (when not blanked and redirected) been tagged as containing LLM text since August. (The page itself has existed in some form since 2012, so there are definitely non-LLM revisions, but it probably doesn't help the cause any.) No opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎03:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: At minimum, the promotional VR1 Media, Acting by Sarfraz and Care Shield sections should probably all be deleted; I am leaving them in place during this discussion though. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak delete or Redirect to Kader Khan. Notability is borderline with unreliable sources. He could possibly meet WP:NACTOR but it is unclear if he has had leading roles. Most of the content, including early life, education, and later career, is unsourced, and the sections on VR1 Media, Acting by Sarfraz, and Care Shield are promotional. If kept, it needs substantial work. Macdddd (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Despite being WP:REFBOMBed, this British law firm does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP. Across 72 sources, there is not a single one that shows WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Instead, the sources are:
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in coverage of other topics (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
Non-independent writings by the firm's personnel (, , )
The firm's own website (, , )
Sources that don't mention the subject (, , , , , , )
The best source is this one, but the company still only gets a few mentions in a much longer article and I don't think it's even close to SIGCOV. There's so much reliance on primary sources and sources that don't mention the subject that I consider this to be a piece of original research and thus fails both WP:NCORPand the WP:NOT test. And while I don't detect strong WP:AISIGNS, earlier versions included dead links in sources that were dead at the time of publishing, and the page creator acknowledged using AI to format citations, so it's possible there is a need to look for AI-related issues as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created the article, and I accept that it is over-referenced and that a fair number of the citations do not establish notability. Some of the primary sources, directories, personnel announcements and passing mentions could probably be removed.
I don't agree, though, that there is no significant independent coverage.
The 2014 Guardian article is the clearest example. It discusses TV Edwards' finances, staffing changes, salary reductions, use of paralegals and its response to legal-aid cuts. That seems to go well beyond a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NCORP says significant coverage can consist of "description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation", and also specifically says that the organisation does not have to be the main topic of the source.
I also don't think all of the specialist legal press can simply be excluded as WP:TRADES. NCORP does create a presumption against trade publications, but it also expressly says that feature stories from leading trade publications may be used where independence is clear. I agree that routine merger and appointment stories don't establish notability, but independently reported features should be considered individually.
On the primary-source point, I don't think their use makes the article WP:OR. WP:PRIMARY allows primary sources for straightforward descriptive facts. If I have used any of them to draw conclusions that the sources themselves don't make, I am happy for that material to be removed.
The same applies to the AI concern. I did use AI to help format some citations. If there are any citation errors, unsupported statements or other problems, I am happy to correct them. But that seems separate from whether the subject satisfies NCORP.
I agree the article can be tightened considerably, and I am happy to do that. I just don't think the available sourcing supports the conclusion that the firm has received no significant independent coverage. Keep and improve. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
‘’‘Keep.’’’
I agree with the Article creator. The Guardian piece alone appears to provide substantive, independent discussion of the firm rather than a passing mention, and the specialist press sources should be assessed individually rather than dismissed wholly as trade coverage. The article clearly needs pruning, but that is a cleanup issue, not in itself a reason for deletion. On balance, I think there is enough here to satisfy WP:NCORP, particularly when the stronger sources are considered together.
You're Correct that this is the first activity on this account, that's because I rarely use Wikipedia these days, and I lost the password to my old, primary account. In regards to AI, i can barely use Wikipedia any more, let alone ChatGPT or what have you.
I can barely remember to put my dentures on in the morning. Do you think I can remember the name of an account from like several years ago? NimbNimb (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it is rather unusual that someone who
can barely remember to put dentures on in the morning suddenly arrived at a deletion discussion with a determination to participate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe the article meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG). The nomination argues that "death literacy" is a non-notable neologism not in public parlance. However, the GNG is based on whether a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, rather than on whether it is a common term in everyday language.
Independent media coverage:
The article now cites substantial media coverage of death literacy from multiple independent sources:
The Guardian (2016) discussed "death literacy" in an article about end-of-life conversations.
The Saturday Paper (2017) published an article specifically about death literacy and dying at home.
ABC News (2017) covered the concept in connection with Dying to Know Day, and in 2019 reported on an ACT inquiry that identified a need for improved death literacy and discussed Death Cafés as one response.
The Irish News (2025) reported on research examining death literacy across Ireland.
The Belfast Telegraph (2025) reported on the findings of that research, including differences in death literacy between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The New Indian Express (2026) discussed death literacy in the context of end-of-life decision-making.
These are independent media sources, published over a period of ten years and across several countries. They demonstrate that the concept has received coverage beyond the original researchers and their publications.
International academic adoption:
The concept has also been taken up by researchers internationally. The Death Literacy Index has been adapted and validated in Turkey and Sweden, and used in population studies in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Singapore. A 2026 paper describes death literacy as an emerging research area and examines its use in policy and practice.
GNG:
The relevant question is therefore not whether "death literacy" is a term in common public parlance, but whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I believe the body of independent media coverage now cited in the article demonstrates that it has, and I have added these sources to the article.
Stubification is fine, but someone should do it first. There is an obvious tension with WP:ATD-E, but WP:NEWLLM enjoys community support both in terms of wording and practice, and is more specific. Another practical issue is that unless the article is made compliant now, it won't be made compliant in the near future (yes, WP:NODEADLINE, but everything has a deadline). Kelob2678 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I would do it, but the last time I performed stubification during an AfD, it wasn't taken well. I would commit to stubifying following the result of the AfD.
The editing policy (which takes precedence over the NOLLM guideline? states that editors should
Fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. Removing all the content but even just one or two sentences from the lead (rewritten if necessary) would remove all problematic AI generated content and would address all relevant reasons for deletion. The deletion policy (specifically WP:ATD) says
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. There is no rationale for why deleting the article is preferable to stubifying it - a notable topic would belong in a finished encyclopedia, so PRESERVE mandates that we keep it in some form. Katzrockso (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If you rewrite the article, I will change my vote. Actual community practice is more important than the text of policies and guidelines. It is clear that the community wants articles like this to be deleted, and I see no reason to dissent. If consensus were different, I would vote differently. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Regarding
the last time I performed stubification during an AfD, it wasn't taken well, I recall this ANI thread (from WP:ARBDEL) in which the policy-compliant phrase (per WP:OVERCOME and WP:NEXIST)
Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different was criticized. In this case, article improvement actually addresses the underlying issue. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep but stubify to remove NOLLM violations. Quick search on Google scholar found at least ten papers which primarily address this as the subject Katzrockso (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The argument that the subject is not in the public parlance is irrelevant - Wikipedia covers topics of both specialist and general interest. There is no requirement in the GNG that a term needs to be known to the general public, only that reliable sources cover the subject. In this case, there are a number of reliable sources, even if those are specialist. Katzrockso (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article is not the original draft that was previously declined at AfC. Following that review, I substantially rewrote the article from the cited sources. The present version is a new, source-based draft. Since this discussion began, I have continued to edit the article to improve accuracy and clarity, including:
- Correcting the description of the Irish research (the DLI was adapted for use in Ireland, not used in a population study).
- Refining the wording of the research findings so they accurately reflect the published, cited paper.
- Clarifying the description of the media sources.
I therefore do not think the existence of the earlier draft establishes that the current article is AI-generated. The article has been substantially rewritten and continues to be improved. I welcome further discussion ~~~~ Karenthecelebrant (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep in trusting that @Karenthecelebrant is telling the truth here. It doesn't read like an LLM, and the sourcing is broad and of great enough import to justify retainment notwithstanding.
Delete - coverage via reliable sources appears to be trivial. Term itself appears to not be significantly covered besides a few sentence mentions. Might be a better fit in Wiktionary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate the comment. I don't believe the sources cited are merely trivial mentions of the term.
Several of the independent media sources give death literacy substantial coverage as a subject in its own right. The Guardian published a dedicated article titled "Festival of dying: is your 'death literacy' lacking?", which discusses the concept in the context of preparation for death and developing practical knowledge around death and dying. The Saturday Paper published "Death literacy and dying at home", which examines the concept in the context of end-of-life planning and dying at home. The Irish News likewise published a dedicated article about a Queen's University study examining death literacy across Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph subsequently reported on the findings of that study. The New Indian Express also discusses death literacy in the context of end-of-life decision-making.
There is also scholarly discussion of the concept itself. Rogerson et al. (2026) specifically examine "death literacy: tensions between theory and practice" and describe it as an emerging research area.
The sources therefore include both independent media coverage specifically focused on death literacy and scholarly work examining the concept itself. I believe this goes beyond passing or trivial mentions and provides significant coverage of the subject under the GNG. I therefore believe the article meets the General Notability Guideline and should be kept. Karenthecelebrant (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Further to the above, I have since identified additional independent media coverage published in 2025 and 2026. The Hindustan Times, The Hindu and The Week all discussed the concept of death literacy and its role in planning for end-of-life in their coverage of India's first Death Literacy Festival. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post subsequently reported on death literacy in relation to end-of-life preparation, advance directives and living funerals, including findings from a 2025 study of death literacy among Hong Kong residents.
These sources, which I have added to the article, provide further examples of substantive discussion of death literacy itself, rather than merely passing references to the term. Karenthecelebrant (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - The phenomenon seems notable with sources such as 1 covering it but the page is unscientifically return and definitely needs to be rewritten. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Karenthecelebrant: if you continue using LLM to polish your responses in this discussion, they'll be discarded. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎12:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This does not mean that they will necessarily be disregarded. It means that AI polished wording has been removed from view unless "shown" until the eventual closer assesses what the consensus is and whether they are to be considered useful by them. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Another article in a series of 'Adoption of the euro in ...' by the same author (now blocked). All articles use the same template, which looks to be generated by an AI. Vgbypw (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Another article in a series of 'Adoption of the euro in ...' by the same author (now blocked). All articles use the same template, which looks to be generated by an AI. Vgbypw (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose redirecting to Saturno (album) because, aside from the fact that the article is AI-generated, it does not meet WP:GNG or the higher standards of WP:NSONG. the only time people have talked about it is when reviewing the album, or when its music video released, and I don't think the best source on that is SIGCOV 1brianm7 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I respectfully contest the deletion nomination for Gowri Savithri. The subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:AUTHOR through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources:
1. Modeling – National & International coverage:
- BBC News (2016) – "India's transgender sari models winning hearts" – independent feature on subject as part of Mazhavil/Red Lotus campaign.
- NDTV (2016) – "These Pics of Transgender Models in Saris Are Now Viral"
- The Times of India (2016) – "This designer's transgender models are winning hearts"
- The Week, The News Minute (2016) – coverage of same campaign
2. Historic advertising milestone:
- The Quint (25 April 2018) – "#GoodNews: Kerala Brand Features Trans Model in Sari Ad" – about Karalkada billboard at Swaraj Round, Thrissur
- The Asian Age (30 April 2018) – "Gender, no bar in modeling"
- The Times of India (23 April 2018) – "It's a model worth emulating"
Subject was noted as first transgender model in 163-year history of Karalkada brand and one of first trans models on a large billboard in Kerala.
3. Film career:
- The New Indian Express (7 Aug 2021) – "Queer drama Pixelia lands on Neestream"
- The Times of India (5 Nov 2018) – confirms Pixelia selection for Indian Competition at 24th Kolkata International Film Festival (KIFF)
4. Author – WP:AUTHOR:
- Gowreepadham (2024) memoir published – covered by Manorama Music album and media.
- The Last Piece of Banana Chips (2026) novel published by DC Books – covered by Kerala Kaumudi (25 Sept 2026).
The Mathrubhumi Diary of a Transgender Model column written BY the subject herself is a primary source and I agree it should NOT be used to establish notability per WP:PRIMARY. I am citing it only as an external link, not as a notability source. The notability is established by the independent sources above.
Delete, low notability per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR and WP:AUTHOR. In the sources cited which can be considered reliable (BBC, Manorama, etc) it's either passing mentions in articles about transgender modelling, or interviews. In an online search I can't find significant reliable, secondary coverage of her, just more like what's already cited in the article. Note that in English and in Google Translate her given name is often transliterated as "Gowri", and her surname as "Savithri". User:Thilsebatti above is probably right about the UPE. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello editors,
I respectfully contest the deletion nomination for Gowri Savithri. The subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:AUTHOR through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources:
1. Modeling – National & International coverage:
- BBC News (2016) – "India's transgender sari models winning hearts" – independent feature on subject as part of Mazhavil/Red Lotus campaign.
- NDTV (2016) – "These Pics of Transgender Models in Saris Are Now Viral"
- The Times of India (2016) – "This designer's transgender models are winning hearts"
- The Week, The News Minute (2016) – coverage of same campaign
2. Historic advertising milestone:
- The Quint (25 April 2018) – "#GoodNews: Kerala Brand Features Trans Model in Sari Ad" – about Karalkada billboard at Swaraj Round, Thrissur
- The Asian Age (30 April 2018) – "Gender, no bar in modeling"
- The Times of India (23 April 2018) – "It's a model worth emulating"
Subject was noted as first transgender model in 163-year history of Karalkada brand and one of first trans models on a large billboard in Kerala.
3. Film career:
- The New Indian Express (7 Aug 2021) – "Queer drama Pixelia lands on Neestream"
- The Times of India (5 Nov 2018) – confirms Pixelia selection for Indian Competition at 24th Kolkata International Film Festival (KIFF)
4. Author – WP:AUTHOR:
- Gowreepadham (2024) memoir published – covered by Manorama Music album and media.
- The Last Piece of Banana Chips (2026) novel published by DC Books – covered by Kerala Kaumudi (25 Sept 2026).
The Mathrubhumi Diary of a Transgender Model column written BY the subject herself is a primary source and I agree it should NOT be used to establish notability per WP:PRIMARY. I am citing it only as an external link, not as a notability source. The notability is established by the independent sources above.
The article I created has been challenged several times so far, and this is the second time you have nominated it for deletion. I have already explained that I did not use AI to generate the article, yet the suspicion about AI use continues to be raised.
I would like to clarify once again that I used translation tools to help write the article; I did not use AI to generate it.
I have said several times that I am a Persian speaker and that I am not fluent in English.
If there are particular words or phrases in the article that make it appear AI-generated to you, wouldn't it be more helpful to simply point them out and help correct or improve them?
Wouldn't that be more productive than repeatedly nominating the article for deletion based on a suspicion about how it was written?
I am willing to correct any awkward wording, translation issues, unsupported statements, or other problems in the article.
If you believe the article violates a specific Wikipedia policy, please identify the specific policy and the specific content that you believe violates it, rather than speculating about whether AI was used.
I would much rather work with you to improve the article than have it repeatedly nominated for deletion based on an assumption that I have already explained is incorrect. ایران 1405 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: per WP:TNT and WP:NOLLM. In addition to featuring signs of AI composition, the article also has numerous sources that don't support the claims that are used. For example, 8 and 9 say nothing about brine or lithium, 7 says nothing about the playa being a national heritage site or being part of the tourism group (it mentions Bajestan, not the playa). 5 uses stock photos of other deserts (one of them is from a different part of Iran) and is a completely garbage source. I've now spent more time on this article than the creator did in asking whatever LLM to generate it, so I'll stop, but there's nothing verifiable to redeem here and if we are to have an article on this subject, it needs a complete restart from scratch. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:46, 5 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
Ah - it didn't read like LLM anywhere, and the sources I checked all were real sources that supported the info, so I didn't think there was an LLM. As for notability, I accepted based on the Legion of Honor medal per WP:ANYBIO, but if that's an insufficient award I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: insufficient valid secondary sources to pass GNG. She might have a famous last name but notability is not inherited here and also, we are not LinkedIn --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:52, 3 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
Comment: for context as to how someone (neither me nor the nominator) sorted this as a suspected AI-generated article (as the nominator did not bring it up at all): this has been tagged as such since March based on a 2024 edit that apparently must not have been cleaned up much in the intervening two years. (No opinion on that or the merge proposal.). WCQuidditch☎✎21:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This page was deleted earlier today by Crisco 1492 following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personalised external aortic root support, and an identical copy was already re-posted by the page creator and re-deleted per WP:G4. The page creator has now posted a shorter version at a page with a parenthetical disambiguator, presumably to evade detection. Since it is substantially shorter than what was deleted (although it does not include any new information), I do not know if G4 applies so am leaving it to the community; happy for an admin to G4 this if they decide it does apply. This version has a defective DOI link that is usually generated as a result of LLM assistance. Courtesy ping to the other participants in the AfD, WeirdNAnnoyed and Vanamonde93. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOLLM and G4. In my own estimation removing content from a previous version is insufficient to exempt a recreated article from G4. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a new version created today, it is not removing content from a previous version.
The version you posted today had identical content except for the two paragraphs removed. The whole thing had been generated by LLMs, which is why you need to start over from scratch, not just publish the same text you used before. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I initially removed those two paragraphs as that seemed to be the issue.
Now this version has been rewritten. Its only two paragraphs why would I generate it with an LLM? I have just rewritten the very basic description of what this procedure is. I cannot see how this is contested fact or AI generated. There are only two sources and both back up everything that is now written. It is claimed the DOI is evidence of it being generated by LLM but I have provided two valid sources taht clearly show the DOI that i cited. Tororro (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The DOI link in the article is still broken. You didn't "rewrite" the two paragraphs. You copied them from the original version you produced that involved LLM use. If you want to write on this topic, start over with human work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not attempting to evade detection and not sure why this is implied. I am trying to establish a page so that wiki users can find out about this procedure. The DOI appears to be correct as far as I can tell. see here: https://www.optechtcs.com/article/S1522-2942(21)00035-0/fulltext
This is a widely discussed and practiced medical procedure and deleting the page is not at all helpful for wiki readers that might seek information. Tororro (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Your LLM messed it up, creating a fake DOI and hallucinating the wrong author list. In the article it says Golesworthy and Treasure as authors; in the actual source, the authors are Kenny, Austin, Golesworthy, Venugopal and Alphonso. We'd love to have an article on this topic written by a human, but nothing you've done thus far is human-written, and it's far too dangerous to have unreviewed LLM output about medical devices and procedures on Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 1 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
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
I propose this article for deletion as the pilot likely does not warrant his own page. The information contained in this article is largely covered in the article referring to the flydubai incident Tibs foxxo (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete/Redirect The subject's coverage is almost entirely derivative of a single current event, with no demonstrated enduring independent notability. Plus, LLM-generated content and limited verifiable bio sourcing, relevant material could be merged into the flight article. As always, Wikipdia is WP:NOTPROMOTION~2026-51515-81 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You do raise some good issues, however, the entirety of any potential large language model material has been removed, by myself. In addition, I've added significant verifiable material about biographical sourcing, and relevant material to the individual's early life, as well. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
RedirectDelete then redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E. The content should be deleted in that WP:NOLLM almost certainly applies (though not clearly enough for a speedy WP:G15), then a redirect re-created.} WP:USUAL also applies: if and only if this pilot subsequently demonstrates notability beyond the scope of this event, an article can be re-created at that time. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Given the extent to which the article has been reworked since my initial !vote, I've taken another look at this. The LLM content has been removed and no longer needs to be deleted, but apart from that my opinion is essentially unchanged. We now have lots of biographical detail but it is largely unencyclopedic trivia: absolutely nothing the subject did before FZ1073 was notable. Details of the awards can be merged to the FZ1073 article, but that's about it. I understand the WP:EFFORT that has gone into this, but unfortunately that's not a good enough reason to keep. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073: Non-notable and BLP 1E case. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 10:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC) If the article is qualifed for GNG criteria to overide the 1E case, it can Keep, otherwise Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073. As the deadlock time is extending and media coverage is increasing, there is a chance it might be notable to this particular topic, subject to GNG criteria passage of the bio. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)15:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep CNN, NYT and other has published his bio including info about his family, education, flight experience, personal qualities and health condition after all. Politicians, heads of state speak of him in particular. No doubt he will get a state merit. Clarettt (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect for now – if he gains a bigger profile in the future, the redirect can always be turned back into a standalone article. Scamster (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Users who say it should be redirected to the main article on the terrorist incident should know that there is no official section discussing the heroic crew and passengers. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for saying you agree with a lot of the keep commenters, predicated upon receipt of future awards and honours. Since your comment, that has now occurred, and the individual has already received multiple honours, and been nominated for multiple more awards at the federal governmental wide level. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I feel like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I agree it could potentially have independent enduring significance like John Ogonowski. However, given what we currently know about Flydubai Flight 1073, the coverage about specifically this pilot is not enough to warrant its own page. Squid45 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect or merge to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E, I think this deserves at least some type of mention for now but the article would have to be majorly rewritten because of LLM usage. Otherwise topic isn't notable and does not warrant an article yet. --Justcgi (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - the precedent for similar pilots having pages (as seen above) is compelling so this should be followed rather than broken. Either this needs to be made a general policy or this page should be kept. Ftrhi (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Sullenberger has tons of SIGCOV (like literally a blockbuster Hollywood movie where Tom Hanks plays him) that is not directly news coverage of the actual event. As of now, this is not the case for Machchhar. Mausfield (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is easily going to be made into a Bollywood movie at the minimum. Sully is a hero who landed safely in the Hudson due to mechanical failure. Smit saved 174 lives by preventing a terrorist attack. Nkulasingham (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your keep commentary, Ftrhi, and indeed I've seen multiple media sources discussing popular culture television shows and films to be made about the individual and the incident since your keep comment. One of which was the aviation TV show which taught the passenger how to pull back on the plane controls to increase its altitude. I'll do more research on this as well. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah I mean that's not the only one, there are others you can see in the See Also of this article here. The precedent is clear Ftrhi (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect per WP:BLP1E, no merge as it looks very LLMish. He will likely independently reach SIGCOV in the near future with some kind of influencer career or whatnot but clearly that is not the case now Mausfield (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your keep commentary, Ericoides, and you may be indeed correct, I have seen it posited they would do an episode of the TV show, Mayday, on it, where one of the passengers learned how to act in an airline crisis . Princessa Unicorn (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect This person is notable to an extent, but I think that for now just having him in a section of the main article makes sense. If he ends up doing more things in the future that increase his notability on his own, like writing a autobiography, that would more justify a stand alone article. Cocoaguy(talk)18:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS (namely point 3 "Who's who", which is very similar to BLP1E). News may cover his background but politicians and heads of state praising him as a "hero" does not change the fact that he is only notable for this single event, and there is ultimately not much additional notable information from the main article, most of it about the incident itself; any relevant career history and the status of his recovery can be added there.
I believe it is too soon for him to receive a separate article under the assumption of further coverage and post-crash fame like Al Haynes, and the earlier referenced pilots/passengers of US Airways Flight 1549 and the 9/11 hijackings which themselves are much more significant incidents that continue to be referenced to this day. Plus, his role in the incident itself is actually not as significant as these examples since he was incapacitated after fighting against the first officer and opening the cockpit door, and it was other passengers and off-duty pilots who regained control of the plane. –Sonicwavetalk18:40, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge with Flydubai Flight 1073 and Redirect Just as the reasons above, the current informations on the page isn't warrant for an independent page - apart from the aviation incident part, while the rest of the contents can simply be merged with the incident article. Once we have more information that suggesting the pliot deserve his page, we can write a new article all over again.
Redirect There's not a single reference on the page dated before 30 September, and the possibility of him someday receiving more notoriety doesn't make up for the lack of current coverage independent of the event. Tuirse (talk ☘︎)18:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps in the future, Machchhar will hold an important position in the aviation industry or become a philanthropist; however, I feel that the English Wikipedia is being too hasty in wanting to delete the entry for someone who achieved something remarkable. Fortunately, the article is being expanded into other languages where the feat is recognized. I believe the article should be moved to a draft and we should see what happens in 60 days. I checked the main article again, and the short BLP biography does not appear there. ~2026-52430-58 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe we should actually keep it. To honor such a brave and strong captain, does need some recognition. But we should only keep it if he agrees to. FlyArc350 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge with existing article. Not enough info for a whole independent article, but this person's life and story obviously can't be ignored on Wikipedia. ~2026-51187-32 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect per WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice against recreating the article if he continues to receive news coverage. We need some WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE before he can be considered notable. The other individuals mentioned above by Princessa Unicorn continued to receive coverage for years; this incident occurred yesterday. Mlb96 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Thanks to User:Princessa Unicorn's work, none of the initial AI-generated content remains and now contains substantial biographical beyond just the Flydubai incident. WP:HEY applies. Catalk to me!01:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I'll update my !vote to Keep since it'd appear the threshold for point 3 under WP:BLP1E is (un)met rather than it beyond any initial breaking news blitz and general attention. FreeSkyBirdie (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Stumbled upon this via redirect and saw the AfD banner. Keep, absolutely. It easily passes WP:GNG, and other policies. Heavy international media coverage plus remarks from multiple heads of state make this a clear keep. Anabhibhuta (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - there is overwhelmingly major news as per WP:SIGCOV - it is unlikely he's going to be remembered for only one event considering he is still alive and is already being hailed as a Hero by India and Israel. So eventually you will see articles of the awards he gets. Nkulasingham (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, hopefully we have begun to reflet the significant coverage, in the article, after our improvement upon it recently post this deletion nomination starting. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: it is pretty clear at this point, based on the international investigations and comments by world leaders, that the event is significant. Extensive coverage clearly indicates that Machchhar played a significant and well-documented role in it. WP:BLP1E (namely the third condition) no longer seems to apply. The article is a much more complete biography now that Princessa Unicorn and others have improved it, so it is no longer a WP:NOLLM violation either. I agree with Ca that WP:HEY applies. KikiFur (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)I am retracting this !vote and casting a new one (at the bottom of the thread to maintain chronology).KikiFur (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, KikiFur, so much, for your kind words acknowledging the work put into this article to improve it further. I'm glad you feel the article now reflects the extensive coverage and significant discussion in sources. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: 1) As the objectionable LLM-generated text has been removed, 2) Smit has been praised by the heads of government of two countries and 3) It is highly likely that Smit will be awarded by one or more honours to commemorate his actions,
The article qualifies for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLLM and I suggest keeping it; or drafting it if issues still remain in the article. Further edits can improve the article per WP:HEY. Would also like to thank @Princessa Unicorn for their efforts to improve the content of the article. SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks very much, SomePacifisticGuy, for your kind words about my efforts to improve the content of this article. It's greatly appreciated. I agree with you that it qualifies for significant coverage at this point in time. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: this person, and his life away from this incident, now has significant coverage in major international media of multiple countries. Also now meets the general notability guideline. We have articles on a guy who started a garage band and did a couple of concerts that got very local media coverage; Smit Machachhar clearly meets a much higher standard for a notable-person BLP. N2e (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep The third condition that needs to be also met as per WP:BLP1E to not suffice for an article on Wikipedia states as follows:
The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
Keep He has continuously received significant international coverage and recognition for his actions from independent news sources. This level of coverage appears to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability criteria for a standalone article.Oppwerhrz (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Your keep comments make sense, and over and above since you made them, your words were borne out by further and increased coverage over time. Thanks so much, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks so much, Guettarda, I would tend to agree with you. Particularly with regard to further developments, as noted, above, and a 2nd honour requested:
The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) wrote to Prime Minister of IndiaNarendra Modi in a letter from 2 October 2026, requesting Machchhar be given a National Bravery Award.
@Tvx1 - yes, but WP:BLP1E applies when three criteria are met: notable for one event (true); person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (see Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual; this condition is no longer met); and that event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented (absolutely not true). So the Wikipedia policy no longer applies. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, but its hard to disprove when Smit has sustained news coverage. We aren't talking about a local news story where the woman's cat is up the tree. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect. Clear case of WP:BLP1E and also WP:CFORK. The point of discussion is not whether this person should be covered on Wikipedia in any way but whether a standalone article for him is warranted. And the answer to that is a clearly no. There is no significant information regarding this person that cannot be adequatly covered in the article on the event. And that is something none of the keep !voters have adressed.Tvx1 22:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Per WP:CFORK: "Most types of content forks are acceptable". This is neither a POV fork nor a "page of the same type on the same subject", so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Plenty of votes, including my own, have addressed WP:BLP1E. All three conditions must be met, and there is a decent argument that the third one is not met in this case.
~50% of the article in its current form contains information that would not be suitable for the article on the event, including his early life and career. This has also been addressed by a plenty of votes, again including my own. KikiFur (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
But the early life and career sections are largely trivial and seem to be full of fluff to try and pad out the article. Anything noteworthy can be covered in the main article. Cubnorth (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It is hurtful to hear this bad faith comment about the early life and career of this living person. Certainly, I'm attempting to carry out research and find information in cited sources in good faith. I agree with KikiFur that there is good information here that should remain in this article and would be overweighted if duplicated in the article about the air incident, itself. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
An observation and opinion is not a bad faith comment. I appreciate the work that you're doing, but in my opinion, it feels like there's a view of more = better in this article, which is not necessarily the case when it comes to notability. A lot of the information does not appear relevant, and relies heavily on trivia and excessive quotations. Cubnorth (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
There is definitely some fluff in the article right now (certainly at the time of your reply), but I think there is information that would not be suited for the article on the event, made noteworthy by significant coverage. His career history as a pilot doesn't seem irrelevant. The paragraph concerning fundraisers, as well as praise from cricketers and actors seems relevant also, and not suitable for the main article on the event. KikiFur (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Most types≠all. This is not one of them. All the truly significant information can easily be dealt with in the article on the event. Redirects were invented for a reason.Tvx1 15:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The two types I listed, POV forks and "pages of the same type on the same subject", are the only two the WP:CFORK guideline considers unacceptable. This is clearly not a POV fork, and the intended subject of this article (Machchhar) is not the same as the subject of the article on the event. This is not a "Domestic House Cat" vs "Cat" situation.
Much of the information in this article should not be dealt with in the article on the event, and significant coverage of Machchhar makes it significant information. Perhaps some fluff may need removal, but that is not a reason for deletion. KikiFur (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, I believe the page falls in the former category of pages of the same type on the same subject. The significant information in in the article is the report of the events he was part of. That is already adequatly dealt with in the article on the event. As can any recognition be dealt with. I don’t see which other much information is here that is must to keep on Wikipedia and can’t be dealt with on the other article.Tvx1 12:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It is not a matter of belief. The subject of this article (the person Smit Machchhar) is objectively not the same as the subject of the article on the event. WP:CFORK does not apply. You may want to observe that no other delete/redirect !votes, some from very experienced editors, mention CFORK at all.
Machchhar's article is justified per WP:GNG, and it does not meet the third (and at this point arguably second) exclusion condition of WP:BLP1E. His education, career, and awards are all relevant in creating a balanced biography. None of those are relevant to the main article. KikiFur (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
His education and awards are not encyclopedically relevant though. Otherwise he would have already had an article before this event. The awards can perfectly be dealt with in the article on the event. After all the awards are the direct consequence of what happened on that flight. Tvx1 14:33, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. First, I think he already passes per WP:GNG based on the coverage. Secondly, he passes even per WP:BLP1E. According to WP:BLP1E, 3 conditions should be satisfied to avoid having the page about the person. 3rd condition: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. But this is exactly such a case here. The role of this pilot was central and well-documented in the event: while being badly injured, he unlocked the cockpit door, which saved all the passengers and the crew. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Agree with your keep comments with regards to significant amount of coverage, as well as the central role in the story, and the continued coverage about him that continues to increase. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Although the pilot may now be famous for a one-off incident of this nature, its his heroic act to save the pilots in the Flydubai Flight 1073 that warrants him becoming a notable personality in aviation fraternity. Hence I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. There are numerous examples on pilots having their own mainspace Wikipedia article including the likes of Abhinandan Varthaman, and Indian pilot who was captured by Pakistan during the 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. Abishe (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks so much for your keep comments, and I would agree with you that the model is similar to other heroic aviators that have received sustained coverage over time. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Per above. He has received, and is continuing to receive, extensive international coverage. His role in a major event was
substantial and
well documented (1E criteria). MB243709:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, Mb2437, and I would agree with you. The breadth and depth of significant coverage only seems to be increasing and increasing. As does the interventions from International government federal officials, and the awards. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE and WP:CRYSTAL. Anything notable here can easily fit into the main article, the rest is mostly trivia (e.g. "His family worked in the textile industry", "Machchhar knew that he wanted to pilot Boeing airplanes") and unnecessary detail (e.g. a whole paragraph about the Indian Prime Minister's hospital visit). Maybe in the future there will be more to cover to warrant a standalone page, but there doesn't seem to be now. AVDLCZ (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your keep communication, and I would agree with you that with the publicly released videos with multiple heads of state of international countries, I think you are correct about the persistence of the sustained coverage. Princessa Unicorn (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Which doesn't disallow anyone of having the opinion that a standalone article is not warrant when the significant information on the subject can easily be dealt with within an other existing article.Tvx1 15:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
A merger doesn't mean every single character needs to be copied. There actually is a lot of insignificant information in this article. Tvx1 11:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Huh? Can you clarify how that would be irrelevant, Tvx1? (Personally, I wouldn't want to create an article in a language other than English as that is the only language I know.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
What's that got to do with it? Each language of Wikipedia is working independently with others - not mention other online encyclopedias. So what they do shouldn't be the reason we should do the same here as well. Like, an event notable in East Asia doesn't mean it has the equal notability here for its own page. Awdqmb (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It's not necessary to reply in thanks to every keep comment. This is not habitual AFD practice. If you want to thank a person, go to the article/talk page history and use the provided thank function. It's also remarkable how invested you are in this subject. More than 90% of your contribution history deal with this person. In any case, you've made your thoughts on the subject more than clear enough, let others weigh in now. No need to bludgeon.Tvx1 15:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Much like Sully Sullenberger, an airline captain after a modern heroic aviation action is been widely discussed and is notable; he will also likely continue gaining awards/recognition once recovered. ZR1748 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep as many news outlets like CNN, NYT, BBC, Zee News, The Jerusalem Post and others have published his bio including info about his family, education, flight experience, personal qualities and health condition after all. Other pilots in similar situations have their own Wikipedia article, so why should this one be the exception? Also, the government of Gujarat is going to honor him with the Vishisht Gurajat Garima Award for his bravery. Maor X (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: This is the second time you are applying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-argument in this thread, but this time you are also dismissing the parts where the original commenter has mentioned about the variety of media publications available to cite the subject and the honour he is being conferred by the Government of Gujarat to back the notability criteria.
While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.
Except no proper comparison is made here. Just a basis claim that one article MUST exist because of the existance of an other. And so OTHERSTUFF applies. Tvx1 12:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, whilst initially his notability seemed a bit questionable, he has received significant coverage in various news sources. Sahaib (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep This article should absolutely be kept, it is thus far very well written and there is likely to be further news and notable awards present to the subject which we will be able to link here, deleting it at this time would be unproductive to the work already done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnameless (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
A no-brainer actually. But then again: aren't we suppost to add our opinion here? Is there any added value to such a response or just checking off that you responded some 20 times on this page, with possibly more to come? gidonb (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem is you present an opinion as pure fact. I strongly disagree that only one condition is met.Tvx1 14:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment As a reminder, the mere fact that other articles exist is not justification for keeping this article. If you could explain why there is a good reason the other articles exist AND show that this reason applies to this article, then that may be a good argument. However, I don’t think this can be done: Sully Sullenberger has received about 17 years of continuous coverage while the passengers and crew of Flight 93 have received a quarter-century of coverage. These individuals simply have a far stronger claim to notability than Machchhar (who has only received a few days of coverage). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The same can be said for WP:BLP1E though as reasoning for deletion. The pilot is reaching out to the media and has been a high profile individual. His role has also been described as heroic by sources as he was able to fight long enough to unlock the pilot's door. , How isn't this a substantial act? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This isn't really relevant to what Spirit of Eagle is saying. They're not discrediting your arguments about BLP1E by pointing out that some of the !voters in this discussion are comparing figures with long-sustained coverage to a figure with much less. KikiFur (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
But why does that need a second article repeating the same thing. Why isthe article on the event not enough to deal with his actions? Tvx1 12:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 as per BLP1E. An article on Bharatpedia already exists for those who wants to read about him. the subject came to limelight recently due to a single event, unfortunately has nothing to establish notability byond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-53518-46 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
You clearly are not Smit Machchar. Please don't stoop low to the point of literally impersonating the subject of an article, who is still recovering in a medical facility in Saudi Arabia, from his severe injuries, to advertise/promote (WP:NOTPROMO) another encyclopaedia, Bharatpedia and also indirectly advertise/promote AI-generated online encyclopaedias like Grokipedia, with the wording, "AI is more precise on information (misspelled as 'infor' by you)." Honeybrowneyes (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@~2026-53435-30: The wishes of the article subject do not directly affect the result of deletion discussions–which are carried out in accordance with the deletion policy. If the article ends up being kept but the subject objects to any of the content, WP:BLPSELF explains who to contact–which would require proof of identity, of course. See also WP:ASFAQ, which should answer other questions. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I have TA IP Viewer and I forget to what extent I can say anything, but looking at the IP location, it is extremely unlikely that this TA is Smit Machchar. ←Metallurgist (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. The coverage at this point appears to go beyond BLP1E. LLMs are a concern, but the current version seems to have cleaned up most/all of the LLM content, such that I think that the article is viable. Khalitate (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect for now, but not opposed to keep. While there is a lot of coverage, it is still one event-y. No doubt in time he will win an award or write a book, be the subject of a film, or have more in depth biographical coverage. For now, I think it is minimal despite the great effort to build a large article. With a redirect, we preserve all of the work and history, and reversing this at some point in the future is simple. A quick glance at the sources also shows a lot that havent been fully vetted yet, which requires extra care with a BLP. ←Metallurgist (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect per above - I've been following a lot of news about the conflict but didn't even know the captain's name until I came across it in this AfD. Also note that the article should have been G5-ed as an Arab-Isreali-conflict-related article created by a nonextendedconfirmed user, and all comments by non-extendedconfirmed users in this discussion should be disregarded. * Pppery *it has begun...20:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
No? The article is about the pilot, not the attempted crashing/hijacking. The pilot himself is unrelated/independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict (PIA) and so the article as a whole would also not be under PIA even if parts of it would be. Everything about the hijacking itself comes under the purview of PIA, but everything else—the pilot's background information, the various awards he is now getting, and everything along those lines—cannot possibly be seen to fall within PIA even in its broadest application. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Pppery, I am sorry but I can't understand that you didn't even know the pilot's name until you came across this AfD, because anyone who was following the news related to Flydubai 1073 would know Smit Machchhar as several nations such as UAE, Israel, India, USA praised Machchhar for his actions. Also, as @UnpetitproleX said, Machchhar is unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: Two different Members of Parliament in India have each separately called on the Prime Minister of India to give Machchhar the country's highest honor -- the Ashoka Chakra Award.
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and because the 3rd condition of WP:BLP1E is not met, which is essential for BLP1E to apply. BLP1E only applies when "
each of [its] three conditions is met", where the 3rd condition is that "
the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Both the event and Machchhar's role in it have now received significant global coverage beyond any reasonable doubt and thus the third condition remains unmet, which means BLP1E does not apply. From a cursory overview of the other !votes, I don’t see any which references BLP1E and has addressed its inapplicability yet. —UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Came across this while doing other AfDs, I don't agree with nom's rationale, I don't see why its even up for deletion, the article itself has been worked upon by other editors and should be kept. The subject is significant and passes GNG. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 . For BLP1E 2, not known if he will be high profile, given that nothing has been said yet. For BLP1E 3, his role in the attack is, "he was the captain" and "he unlocked the door which saved the plane". I don't think his part are substantial enough in the attack so that BLP1E 3 is unsatisfied. However, we don't know the future and he could be higher up next time this comes around. Techie3 (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
As Netanyahu personslly invited Machchhar along with Modi to hold a torch during the Israel Independence Day on May 11-12 2027, at least wait until this ceremony would happen. Clarettt (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete fails WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is also misleading, trying to hail the person as the savior when the plane was flown by a passenger after the attack. Lorstaking (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I am sorry @Lorstaking, but you comment is partially wrong. You mention as if Machchhar has no role in saving the aircraft and its passengers.
Machchhar is hailed because he pressed the emergency door release button. Reinforced cockpit doors are built of solid steel and cannot be opened from the passenger cabin. Despite being stabbed, and lying on the floor, Captain Machchhar used his final strength to press the emergency door release switch. If he had not unlocked that door, no one from the outside could have entered to help and everyone on that plane would die. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per discussion which contains more sourcing and reasoning as the days go by since this AfD nomination. Along with a other notable pilots, this page personifies the efforts that a pilot will go through to save their plane, and the honors, medals, and cultural examples they have and will receive. Taking out my crystal ball (now where did I store that thing?) I can see at least one film directly featuring and highlighting this hero. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
See Smit Machchhar#Awards and honours for some of the highest awards that national governments can give, which seem to give Machchhar stand-alone notability as an award winner. They even include naming a lounge after him at the very airport that the co-pilot had planned to crash the plane into. Yes, it seems obvious that they are notable and will become more so. As for the suggestion to merge, a merger would have to include all of the main points of this page and, if done well and correctly, would make the event article much too large. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, all of the key points, including the awards, can perfectly be dealt with in the article on the event. Tvx1 13:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Can and should, but shouldn't be confined there. Awards are stand-alone notable, and this fellow will gather a lion's share. I best stop posting or else will drift into bludgeoning in favor of this major hero and heroic act (Tvx1, hint hint). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Which shows that you have some personal admiration for this person clouding your objectiveness. And there is no requirement whatsoever to deal with awards in a standalone article. That claim of your is just not true. They can perfectly be covered in the article on the event with due weight. After all these awards are the direct consequence of the events of the flight.Tvx1 14:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep, this guy's coverage goes way beyond BLP1E. Also, he's more than likely to become a recipient of high awards in India and elsewhere. Max Semenik (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: No second opinion is required with respect to notability. He is extensively covered by all major news outlets and clearly surpasses WP:BLP1E. But, even if this page gets redirected now, it’s pretty okay. His page will be back once he is awarded the highest civilian gallantry awards that are being lined up Charlie (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per WP:BLP1E and spirit behind WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is a textbook case. The keep voters are not following WP:BLP policy. Note BLP1E trumps notability policy in the context of a living person who is known for a single event. Those citing WP:SIGCOV are doing so in error and with complete disregard for BLP policy. Even if we were to accept that BLP1E doesn't apply (which I think its a stretch saying criteria 3 is met), per WP:PAGEDECIDE this topic is better covered in context to the event and not as a standalone article. The current article is essentially documenting the outpooring of awards to this person involved in a single event. It's a hero worship page akin to a memorial (yes I know he is still living but he is being memorialized because of his participation in a tragic event).4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Any concerns about the article's content (
"it's a hero worship page akin to a memorial") should not impact your vote. We do not delete articles because they are in bad shape, because anyone is free to change the article to make it more encyclopedic.
It would be helpful if you explained why you think it's a stretch to say the third criterion of WP:BLP1E is not met. Quite a few keep !voters have addressed WP:BLP1E, so it's a bit strange to hand-wave that away (
"the keep voters are not following WP:BLP policy").
WP:PAGEDECIDE offers guidance on articles where other information provides context, but it is not a catch-all as you claim (
"this topic is better covered in context to the event and not as a standalone article"). It notes that
"Other times, standalone pages are well justified". Note that it also directs you to the subject-specific notability guidelines for help with particular subject areas (such as WP:BLP1E). KikiFur (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@KikiFur: Sure. John Hinckley Jr. is used as the typical example in BLP1E. Hinckley is covered in WP:DIVERSE and WP:SUSTAINED coverage across years of publications including books and journal articles. This person only has press coverage from immediate aftermath period of the event (ie WP:NOTNEWS). In order to pass BLP1E we would need to see more than just immediate press coverage after an event in things other than news websites or newspapers such as academic journal articles and book sources. (ie WP:SECONDARY coverage) We would also need to coverage across time. Not enough time has passed to even consider having a standalone article, and most of the press coverage isn't retrospective but current event reporting which is WP:PRIMARY not WP:SECONDARY (see Newspapers as Primary vs. Secondary Sources ). In short its WP:TOOSOON for the type of coverage needed to pass BLP1E to even exist.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Fair points! Thank you for obliging me:)
Overall I see your point that it's too early to call Machchhar's coverage sustained. I'm not sure I agree that all of the coverage is WP:PRIMARY (unless retrospective articles written days after the event are still "breaking" news), but that doesn't refute your central argument. Admittedly, you might've swayed my !vote. I'll do some more thorough reading into the policies you linked before I commit to changing my mind, though. KikiFur (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion: No exact opinion on if this should go or stay per BLP1E, SIGCOV, and the other related policies that have been cited. However, following WP:ATD shows that this article should either be merged, redirected, or kept. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I extend the invitation to you to express your opinions in the different AFDs of September 30th and the decision of the article is to maintain ~2026-53855-53 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Flydubai Flight 1073 per 4meter4. I'm realizing many of the article's sources are breaking news and considered WP:PRIMARY, and the reliability of some is questionable. Coverage of Machchhar by reputable sources has not yet been WP:SUSTAINED. I'm not opposed to having an article in the future if he proves notable, but that's just not the case yet. Also note that the article is excessively detailed and should not be merged with the Flight 1073 article. But I'm not sure it should be deleted, so...consider my opinion "redirect and definitely don't merge". KikiFur (talk) 02:54, 7 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.
Delete per nom. The second source from Indian Express is 404 for me, and was like that on 21 September according to Wayback Machine, so it is indeed AI-generated. The article is about a project announced by MrBeast, he claimed that more than 1,000 people lived there, but I see no evidence of legal recognition or that it is actually a durable settlement (we need some time to establish this) to pass GEOLAND. For GNG it lacks sustained coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:44, 5 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.
A certainly AI-generated article with lots of evidence of WP:AISIGNS (example:
Early company materials and press coverage describe the firm...) Even if it weren't bot output, there is no evidence of passing WP:NCORP; sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , , , ), WP:CORPTRIV (, ), and typical Nigerian news promo (same article in different sites: , ). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Commenting as author. 1 - Galle Grid Substation is the country's first-ever utility-scale battery energy storage system. 2 - 10MW is huge in Sri Lankan energy industry, we have standalone power plant articles with a much smaller nameplate capacity. 3 - Grid-connected BESS facilities have their own articles on Wikipedia. 4 - Ignoring BESS altogether (and the huge news coverage of Sri Lanka's BESS rollout), the substation is one of approximately 10 that make up the primary backbone of the national grid. Rehman14:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You haven't addressed the core issue here - how does this article meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability? Please show how it meets WP:GNG requirement to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Obi2canibe (talk)21:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
DeleteComment, I believe this to be AI-generated per the signs mentioned by Toadspike above and my previous interactions with Rehman. The sourcing is also not great and don't show SIGCOV meeting the GNG guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Toadspike and Gurkubondinn. I have now updated the article with additional references which highlights the significance of the Galle BESS. I have also courtesy pinged on WT:ENERGY so folks there can shed some light on the significance of grid-connected BESS. I also want to emphasize that this was not created with AI. Cheers, Rehman15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the new sources, nearly all have no byline – similar to WP:RSNOI and WP:RSNON, this may indicate that the article was paid or is simply a recycled press release with little to no editorial review or fact-checking. The only one that looks good is . This one has a byline, but it appears to be a one-person outfit with no editorial review , so not an RS. This still leaves us around two sources away from the GNG. Toadspike[Talk]08:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Not directly relating to the subject of this AFD, but: Newswire, Newsfirst, Independent, Daily FT, etc, are the largest/leading English-language news providers in Sri Lanka. Why they don't use bylines in their news articles is not something I can comment on. Rehman11:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is the second article connected to Antonino Cardillo which is written in a very obvious AI-style. I strongly suspect that the article is authored by somebody connected to the subject. There are two architectural magazines linked here giving sigcov, I am not an expert in that field but I suspect they may be reliable. Ordinarily I would stubbify, however, I am loath to leave an article in mainspace that may have been professionally commissioned without a declaration.
Comment: As the principal reason for this thread was to gain perspective of other users, if no other comments are forthcoming in this relisting period, I would be happy to accept Jishara's opinion that stubbifying is the best way forward.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 1 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
My G15 request was processed, but the article was just recreated instead by the same user. My opinion is still to delete and oppose a merge, for the same reason. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and oppose merge per gukubondinn, and the fact the the article cites no sources means, ipso facto, there is no verifiable material worthy of merging into the main article anyways. Finally, editorially speaking, anything in this article would be overly detailed and WP:UNDUE to be included in the main article.
The issue was addressed in the new version, which was completely rewritten based on the corresponding articles from previous Asian Games. I also understand that the page is considered a redirect candidate. However, other pages that follow the established structure of previous editions are also being redirected, which seems inconsistent with how these articles were structured in previous editions. Faruk6468 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment and Questioning - You all realize Karate at Asian Games has 15 medals events? Not 2. If you ONLY specifically delete Men's 67 kg division + Women's 61 kg and leave the other 13 alone - people will ask why we are singling out on deleting only two events. It's not like those two events are worse reported compared to the other 13. There has to be CONSISTENCY. Do we also think the other 13 needs to be deleted too or we have inconsistent standards applied differently to them? Btw, this event compared to other karate events in the games seem to have relative significant national and historical interests. The Karate at the 2026 Asian Games – Men's 67 kg event documents Uzbekistan's first gold medal in the games where Abdul Vakhkhob Rashidov won that event. There are secondary sources covering the winner beyond just raw data from primary sources.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Are the articles for the other events also LLM-generated? Should we be forced to keep LLM-generated articles if someone else has actually written a sister article? What does "fairness" have to do with it? ‑‑gurkubondinn00:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
There's barely any words in that article. Just raw facts. So wasn't that hard to verify. Took less than a few minutes. I made the effort here and can confirm content is fully verified in scores and rankings etc.
So this is a factually accurate article. Per WP:PRESERVE, we shouldn't be deleting articles after it has human oversight verifying all of it. We shouldn't forget the main purpose of Wikipedia is it should be an accurate place of knowledge. We don't delete accurate information once it's validated to not be factually questionable. If there is no human oversight being bothered and you guys have no interest in these topics then go delete. But I verified it and saw no facts were wrong and so cannot agree to delete after verifying - hence my comment below. If it's deleted, it will be rightly challenged and I will recreate this article. Tho I will need LLM to help teach me how to make the table ( hence a learning curve) but eventually I should be able to figure it out and I will definitely ensure all facts are correct afterwards. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and oppose deletion per WP:PRESERVE - we should not forget the point of Wikipedia. If the facts are factually accurate, the formatting of tables are acceptable - then you are only meant to clean it up or fix minor issues rather than deleting it entirely And I looked at all names, flags, points, final medalists. (I see no issues.) I looked at the overall visual charting and tables - they are acceptable and match the WP:MOS seem in other equivalent articles. I am human oversight and can verify that the article compared to all other karate articles - is consistent in quality and scope. Since the factuality is sound and the visual tables used there aligns with community standards - article should be kept and improved, not deleted on LLM concerns alone. Also we can't be inconsistent. It would look weird as if we only delete articles containing people in that weight class. But leave the other weight class events alone despite they are no different in factual quality. We shouldn't create an arbitrary gap in coverage which makes others needing to fill it.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and oppose deletion. I've come to this article slightly randomly as I've read that Dayanch Keletliyev (Daýanç Keletliýew -TKM) has been provisionally suspended due to a failed doping test. I've just looked at the official results for this event. At first glance, all the results on this article appear to tie up to the official results. Although the original of this article's creation was/may have been an LLM, it looks all OK now. After all, there is the Karate at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's kumite 67 kg which is setup in the same way and only has original sources. So this page looks fine to me and consistent with multi-sports events like this. By the way, isn't this article missing "kumite" in its name? Seaweed (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and for other subpages mass delete; Redirect to Karate at the 2026 Asian Games. Clearly fails WP:GNG as no sources exist to critically cover and analyse this one particular event, and GNG is a Wikipedia guideline, "factual", "accurate", and "consistent" are not; in fact all are highlighted in WP:ATA.
WP:GNG doesn't require an article to be long or have "critical coverage". It requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is now substantial independent international coverage of this event including and not limited to; Also as another pointed out, there is also additional reporting on a doping case in that event, which has now been added to notes.
You previously voted above for Delete on the basis the article has no sources. However, that is no longer true. And "Clearly fails WP:GNG" isn't supported by available sourcing. Even if did fail (arguable), WP:GNG is a notability guideline, not an automatic instruction to delete whenever and other factors should be considered like that standalone articles have reader value as they provide a focused and easier-to-read account of the event. I do agree with below that whether we continue the long standing practise of standalone articles for events - requires broad discussion and proper final consensus, rather than potentially deleting 1000+ of equivalent articles based on the consensus of a few. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: By longstanding custom we have individual pages for these events at major international athletic competitions. (There's also coverage of this individual event here: , , in addition to news sources already in the article.) I sincerely hope the nominator has done an adequate WP:BEFORE for the other pages nominated. While I believe the sourcing supports a "keep", I'll make something of an WP:IAR argument, which is that when there is a longstanding practice of having standalone pages on individual events, it is best to seek consensus at a centralized discussion point or WikiProject talk page instead of asking the community to address these pages one-by-one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Support having a centralised discussion somewhere, this is probably even beyond WP:BUNDLE as these articles are all over the place. As for the sources in this case in particular, I don't see them passing WP:COVERAGE: they are not WP:INDEPTH (routine short articles), very unlikely to have WP:PERSISTENCE, and arguably not WP:DIVERSE as none of them have a unique angle on the story. LkL-70547 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep You all realise for Karate alone there are, as of now, 88 similar articles in Category:Karate at the Asian Games? Same for all other sports represented in the Asian Games, with different amounts of articles (just take a look at Category:Shooting at the 2006 Asian Games). This PetScan would need more fine tuning, but the numbers are easily 1000+ for this kind of results page. It seems to be consensus to accept them, so why discuss the deletion of one such article with an argument that either fits for (nearly) all articles or none? I don't think this is the way. - Squasher (talk) 12:25, 1 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
Obvious AI creation. Strange section header capitalisation, information arranged into bullet lists. The most telling sign is the sourcing format, wildly atypical from the author's easily identifiable messy usual style .
Edward Mike005 has long been a productive editor and a clear net positive. But they will be taken to WP:ANI if a second episode of AI usage is repeated. It is a block-worthy offense per WP:LLM. We are being swarmed by AI slop in the website and don't need editors not willing to put in serious effort. That is unless they can refute the allegations at this AfD. As a disclaimer, I haven't noticed the use of AI in any of their previous articles. SuperΨDro22:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate your concern, but I would like to mention that it is not "AI slop". Not at all.
While I use AI to write drafts, the final form of the article is re-edited by me, checked by me, and published by me. No bots or anything else.
The citation style is mine. I don't know that well to add citations that are not from the websites. Regarding this article specifically, the citations are added via the visual editor. The informations from the book of Iudean I mentioned.
I appreciate your concern, but I would like to ask you not to call me 3 hours work (that is the time it took me to write the article, if I hadn't use AI it would probably have taken 3 days) "AI slop". I use AI to write a draft. But the wikilinks, sources, and corrections - because, trust me, AI gets a lot of things wrong - are done by me. I do this to save time, and, I repeat myself - I check all the information to make sure that it doesn't become "slop". I use AI to help me write the articles, but the articles are not written by AI.
Update: I was wrong, they have made use of AI before . May this AfD serve as a warning to the editor. WP:LLM states clearly the use of AI in Wikipedia is allowed only for basic copyediting and translations, both requiring subsequent human reviewing. SuperΨDro22:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify: The editor made an honest attempt at an article, I'd allow this to go to draft space to be corrected and written properly. AFC can be a great tool for newer editors. I think the intention is there, perhaps the execution leaves to be desired, but I'd not "bite the newbie" over this. To be blunt, LLM is a NO GO here, but I hope the editor can learn from their mistakes and will continue to contribute. All are welcome and we need good, hardworking editors in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I apologise if my initial tone may have been excessively harsh. The editor really is a net positive. But one of the few things I think could ruin the project is the excessive use of AI. Let's keep things here authentic. SuperΨDro22:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
like I said: while AI was used for the draft, the final article is corrected BY ME. I check every sentence, every word, to be factually correct, to be written correctly.
The internal links and wikizations are also made by me. And the sources as well.
I didn't told the AI to write me an article then copy paste here. I used what it wrote as a draft that I expanded, corrected, fixed.
@Edward Mike005: Please note that using AI to write first drafts isn't actually permitted, per WP:NOLLM (which is quite a strict policy, but it's the policy that the Wikipedia community has agreed on). Next time it would be better to write the article in your own words from scratch using the sources as a basis. You can use AI to help you in your research but not to generate actual wording and content. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Please don't drafity it, as it wiki observes strict guidelines against the use of LLM. While the subject of the article itself is notable, it should be rewritten. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe this article features unreliable sources and claims that have not been confirmed, as well as being written similarly to a LLM, which violates article policy Krazonyx (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article is adequately sourced, as reflected on the article's talk page, which has been reviewed and updated since the article's move to mainspace. It was reviewed and accepted from draft via the WP:AFC process on 21 September 2026, the same day this AfD was opened, indicating an independent reviewer already found it met the relevant content standards. An unsubstantiated claim about AI-assisted writing style is not a valid deletion rationale; deletion discussions are meant to focus on notability and verifiability per WP:GNG and WP:V, not on stylistic speculation. If specific sources are believed to be unreliable, I welcome them being identified so they can be addressed directly.Saji•talk11:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This nomination is weird because it doesn't explain which sources would be unreliable and which claims would be unconfirmed. Maybe it's not a great idea to try AfD after only 20 edits.
At the same time, this reply is also weird. What is reflected on the talk page? There's nothing much there about the sources. Likewise, what I told you about AI is very much substantiated - several of the sources were only linked to the root URLs of those websites or not linked at all, which is something the LLMs do, but it's inconceivable that a real editor would do it, so the use of AI was pretty obvious. You also failed to simply deny that you used AI, and have continued to handwave around that issue, which is a bit cringe at this point. --Joy (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The nominator suggests three main reasons for deletion: unreliable sources, unverified claims, and LLM-like writing, none of which are reasons for outright deletion. This seems like a matter for the talk page rather than WP:AfD. guninvalid (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This has already been addressed in detail here , it relates to a single early (July 2026) incident, disclosed and resolved at the time, unrelated to this article. Saji•talk10:37, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm sorry, I just don't buy that it's AI, at least based on the evidence we have. First off, automatic notability per ANYBIO, so that's not even a question. As for the sources, the one without a link was a journal which is frequently not accessed digitally, the one that went to a homepage appears to automatically do that (like certain other sources) when put through the default Wikipedia citation tool, and the way the sources were written at creation doesn't read as AI (i mean, the cite web, link - before the site name and a link instead of a source name screams the default citation tool, it does it like that all the time in my experience, especially for non-English sources). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
And you think an editor who is reviewing AI output wouldn't notice that half their links are broken? Come on now. Which isn't to say that this can't be easily cleaned up, but we shouldn't try to excuse this shoddy work and pretend all is well, rather we should simply fix it, learn from it and know better for next time. --Joy (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the section heading "Academic division of the University of Zadar" and its use in that paragraph is puzzling and suggests that the editor may have mistranslated a source, as "Academic division" seems to be the equivalent of faculty (UK) / school (US) / department, and does not stand alone. This casts doubt on whether the text has been written by a human editor who understands their sources. PamD07:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is translated and adapted from the Hungarian Wikipedia article; no such section heading exists in either this article's Hungarian source or the Croatian Wikipedia article on the subject. That section heading isn't translated from any source. I wrote it myself as an organizational heading. Happy to change it to "Department" or "Faculty" if that's clearer or more standard terminology.Saji•talk08:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sajjadmrt The fact that you used it like that suggests that you are not sufficiently familiar with English to be writing articles in en.wiki or translating articles into English. PamD13:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Plz Calm down, bro! Hold on! Translation doesn't follow a single, specific style. You can't accuse me based on just one sentence, paragraph, or subheading from the article. Besides, I went ahead and made the corrections; I even noted it in the edit summary and mentioned you: "Due to pamd's concerns in the AfD." Saji•talk20:02, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sajjadmrt You also stole another editor's, or other editors', work and passed it off as your own when you "wrote" this article on 19 September without any acknowledgement of it being "translated and adapted". PamD13:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This tone is not conducive to a collegial discussion. You have made personal attacks against me; per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, comments should address content, not the editor's competence or character. I'd note that my work has received support from numerous editors and reviewers throughout this process. On the attribution point: I added the translation attribution note to the talk page as soon as the section heading question raised the underlying concern this was proactive, not concealment. The article's content is accurate to its source regardless of when the attribution note was formally added. Saji•talk14:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It's proactive to own up to something three days after having done it?
And the question of attribution isn't an issue of mere accuracy, it's about a policy with legal considerations. We know it's hard to reconcile that with the modern-day AI logic, but you need to do it nevertheless.
Fundamentally, people will inevitably get annoyed when you fail to observe policies and guidelines, refuse to take responsibility, and then apparently keep wikilawyering in response. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify The creator's Keep vote here looks LLM-generated. So taking into account concerns expressed above, I think draftification is the best option for now. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
For your information, this article was accepted following revisions and moved from the draft to the main namespace. If you have a specific sentence or source in mind, please mention it here, and of course, on the article's talk page! That is all there is to it; it is a very simple process. Saji•talk19:42, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify: I feel quite torn by this, but I think this is the best option. Do I think the AI suspicions are credible as a standalone issue? No, they're tenuous at best - I do not buy the statement that these broken citations are unambiguously AI-generated. However, the creator has repeatedly dodged questions across a variety of forums, and has a clear history of AI use. Actually, @Sajjadmrt: can you give us a clear explanation of your reference to the article's talk page in your keep !vote?
I am also very concerned about how this page was translated and adapted from the Hungarian Wikipedia article. Take, for example, the 'Life' section of the page. The wording and order is very similar to the machine-translated Hungarian article, but the sourcing is entirely different. The English version is entirely sourced to the Croatian Biographical Lexicon (which, by the way, does not actually support most of this paragraph), but the Hungarian version is sourced mostly to this Croatian source. There is a similar pattern for the 'Career' section - wording and structure very similar to the Hungarian version, but PDF sources replaced with web ones. Why is this? Could be AI, or just sloppy verification work, but regardless, serious WP:V issues exist here. This should be draftified and extensively rewritten, so that an obviously notable topic can be covered here. Sycerion (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sycerion, I might encourage you to take a look at WP:LLMTNT, particularly point #3. While it's not an official policy, it's worth noting that there are other options besides draftification and deletion. If the topic is notable (which no one in this discussion has directly disputed, except to say that the article is itself AI), then stubbification is preferred. We would need to stubify it anyway if the principal issue is AI generation. That being said, @Sajjadmrt, please, can you give us a straight answer: did you use AI to draft this article? Yes or no. guninvalid (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@PamD: Old version?! I am surprised you are raising a question I have already answered; please check the article's history. I specifically addressed you there and explained that I had changed the wording.I was referring to the beginning of his professional teaching career.Please pass. Thanks.
You have not explained why you used a term which does not make sense in English. This suggests that you are not familiar with English. Yes, you changed it later, but how did you come to use such a strange term in the first place, and in the version you submitted to AfC? PamD13:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This is not a WP:TNT case? That applies only in the case of deletion, which no one here is arguing for. Indeed, draftification is very often used to avoid having to blow up an article. By the way, don't take my argument as a criticism of your AfC approval - you could never have known that this article was translated from Hungarian Wikipedia, which is the source of our problems here. Sycerion (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sycerion: Yes, that is perfectly clear. I wrote on the article's talk page regarding its translation and editing from Hungarian. Although initiating such a discussion is not a formal requirement under Wikipedia policies, there is nothing wrong with doing so; in fact, it can even be beneficial. It is helpful for a user to visit the page and wishes to assist me (and perhaps improve the article), as they will then understand how the article came to be. I am truly sorry that my action has drawn criticism. This is Wikipedia; it is only natural that an individual's writing may not necessarily be to everyone's liking.
I have not made an accusation of AI usage here, and I remain without an opinion on that allegation. No one is bludgeoning a point here - especially not when the editor in question is repeatedly dodging questions. Sycerion (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I have simply asked what the editor meant when they used the meaningless term "Academic division of the University of Zadar", or how they came to use this wording. I have had no answer. PamD10:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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
Keep the NDTV profile in there is solid, as is the Himalaya Times piece and this Cricket Monthly piece. I'd recommend that we revert it to an older version, though - the current one has WP:AIBOLD and utilizes the * signs at multiple places, which is a pretty strong sign that it's significantly altered by AI - looks like it was during the edits on 21 January 2026, so revision to the version before that would work well Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. The issue isn't whether there are any sources mentioning Ghimire; there clearly are, Jishara. The relevant question is which sources constitute significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. The Cricket Monthly/ESPN feature appears to be the strongest source and is substantially about Ghimire, while several other results I found are primarily routine coverage of CAN events in which she is mentioned in her official capacity. I will pass this on to other editors' judgement. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Since the question raised in this AFD is WP:GNG, a 5 second google search gave me this on the first page which easily indicates she is notable enough and pass WP:GNG. I also agree with Jishara on AI . Khagendra (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't want to influence you to change your opinion, Khagendra. However, I don't think the links you shared necessarily establish WP:GNG by themselves. Some appear to be routine coverage or mentions in connection with her official roles, rather than significant independent coverage of Ghimire herself.. But I will dig deeper onto what Jishara mentioned. And again, trivial mentions or routine company coverages don't qualify a person for WP:GNG. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Routine coverage of appointments and resignations, trivial mentions and other interview pieces do not help establish notability. Keep voters should try to find sources that are completely independent of the subject. New ground, old hurdles can be considered one such source, as it provides substantial independent analysis of the subject, but the subject is still far from meeting GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like it can -the LLM stuff appears to have been done on 21 January 2026, and there's an IA bot revision on 20 January 2026 that seems quite a bit better - it's still a bit weird but doesn't seem AI genned. Furthermore the article's been a thing since it was created in July 2015, so there are definitely unquestionably pre-AI versions. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable, most references are just brief mentions.
One of a number of very lengthy, possibly AI generated, articles about the work of photographer Kansuke Yamamoto . This article is about a single photograph, and basically a description of what a single author says in her book Japan's Modern Divide: The Photographs of Hiroshi Hamaya and Kansuke Yamamoto. As such, Sleepy Sea shows little sign at all of meeting WP:GNG. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – The 2013 J. Paul Getty Museum catalogue discusses Sleepy Sea in detail. Amanda Maddox compares it with Magritte's The Reckless Sleeper and discusses the compass, pocket watch and toy gun marked "Japan". She relates the photograph to Breton, its title and postwar Japan. I think that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. WP:GNG does not set a fixed number of sources; its note on sources allows for cases where one source is credible, neutral and detailed enough for a comprehensive article. Maddox's essay appeared in an edited Getty Museum catalogue. The work is also documented in the 2001 Tokyo Station Gallery catalogue and in the 2017 Japanese Surrealist Photography materials. I don't think the nomination's reference to a single author, by itself, shows that Sleepy Sea fails WP:GNG when Maddox discusses the photograph in this much detail. Fontana2026 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: Since my comment above, I have added a 2013 CNN feature by Lauren Russell to the article. It discusses Yamamoto's political photocompositions and the 1951 security treaty, then describes Sleepy Sea as a 1953 work with a toy gun marked "Japan". It also says that the title does not say what it refers to. This is secondary coverage by a different author and publication. The nomination's point that the article essentially relies on a single author therefore no longer holds. Fontana2026 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Considering the Maddox essay is in an exhibition catalogue (with a vested interest in promoting the work) and the CNN source is a photo blog, with one small paragraph describing the photo, I stand by my nomination. A bloated article of repeated descriptions and context can be simply summed up by the three lines already in the Kansuke Yamamoto article. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply. For WP:GNG, I don't think the fact that Maddox's essay is in a Getty Museum exhibition catalogue, by itself, establishes a specific vested interest in Sleepy Sea or makes the essay non-independent. Getty does not own Sleepy Sea. Maddox provides scholarly analysis of the photograph and its context. It is not promotional copy. Separately, on CNN, WP:NEWSORG notes that material from an otherwise reliable news organization can remain reliable in blog format. The CNN piece describes Sleepy Sea in a discussion of Yamamoto's political photocompositions and postwar politics. Fontana2026 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep - the main article in a sense reflects the artist's body of work, and burying this work into it doesn't do it justice. There are sufficient sources for this stub. Can the main article and this stub be improved? Yes, but AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
