Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Suspected AI-generated articles|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Suspected AI-generated articles. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles/archive

watch

Suspected AI-generated articles

Windward (maritime AI company)

Windward (maritime AI company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several WP:AISIGNS in this article. There's a WP:RO3 inside another RO3 in the first paragraph. The entire article for the most part was created in one edit that was made only 22 minutes after the creator's last edit (while obviously people can edit in different tabs, this is something to take note of). And even if it wasn't generated by a WP:LLM, it still comes off as WP:PROMOTIONAL, and the creator has disclosed they are a paid contributor. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (article creator; disclosed paid contributor, see my user page): Responding to the points raised. On notability - the company has a decade of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal (2015), Financial Times (2016), The Times (2017), BBC News (2018), Reuters (2025), The New York Times (2026) and The Economist (2026), and its data has been cited in UN Security Council Panel of Experts reports. I believe this satisfies WP:NCORP. On the single-edit creation - the article was drafted and sourced offline over several weeks and many hours, and pasted as a finished draft; my paid COI was disclosed per WP:PAID before creation. Every statement is cited and was checked against its source. On tone - I'm removing trademark symbols per MOS:TM and reworded the phrasing flagged as promotional, and I welcome pointers to anything remaining. I will fix it, or any editor is welcome to. Given the extensive sourcing, I'd ask that fixable concerns be handled by editing rather than deletion (WP:ATD). BetweenTheFootnotes (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Artificial intelligence, Suspected AI-generated articles, Israel, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:45, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

NoviSpy

NoviSpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely violates WP:LLM - Blatant WP:AILIST in "Technical characteristics and deployment" section. Page created in a single edit by a low-activity editor who had not edited since January 2025. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This article does not pass WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The technical section needs careful sourcing and trimming, but the subject has substantial coverage: BIRN reports four confirmed NoviSpy installations; The Guardian and TechCrunch also cover the tool and its use. These sources support a concise article under WP:GNG. CRASATO.99 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Tariq Lawal

Tariq Lawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose draftifying because there is potential for notability for this person for their awards but the article was clearly written using an LLM. The author has had similar drafts rejected due to this issue but has expressed a willingness to improve the articles. I do have concerns regarding their brief edit history. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see notability for this young person. The UN award is fine, but a "youth advocate" isn't notable. This is typical and it's in a student newspaper regardless, so a non-RS. There isn't much sourcing to begin with, and an "advocate" this young is rarely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  The Diana Award is given out to almost a hundred people a year , so each winner is not notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I’ve looked into the available sources on Tariq Lawal (my subject), and I agree that the article needs work. The Global Citizen profile gives some detailed coverage of his creative work and activism, while BusinessDay and New Telegraph have also covered his involvement in youth online-safety discussions.

I understand the concerns about relying on awards and brief mentions alone. I think the article should be assessed on the quality and depth of the independent coverage, rather than on the awards by themselves. I’m willing to address the sourcing and content issues, and I would prefer draftification over deletion if the article needs more work before it is ready for the mainspace. Abrotem (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: fails GNG. Also NOLLM --TitCrisse (t•c) 22:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC).
• Delete. This article does not meet any of our guidelines for notability. Aneirinn (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Dmitry Volkov (entrepreneur)

Dmitry Volkov (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soapboxing article that's so full of LLM-generated stuff that I can't even see anything worth rescuing. If we're TNTing this instead, then my suggestion will be to not translate the corresponding article from Russian Wikipedia but to start with our own accepted sources... 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related AfD discussions. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• The only portions of the text that may have been generated by an LLM are the critical sections, which rely exclusively on primary sources and violate both the principles of balanced presentation and other established Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning biographies of living persons. ~2026-55247-92 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

SWE-bench

SWE-bench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AI slop, see explanation in the {{AI-generated}} tag and Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Kukuryza. sapphaline (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Artificial intelligence and Suspected AI-generated articles. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems to be entirely LLM-generated. Goes against WP:NOLLM guideline. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete AI slop indeed. The user has been blocked due to this article and a huge number of other reasons. Shqiptar1999 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Second French-Senussi War

Second French-Senussi War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find reliable sources confirming the "Second French-Senussi War" as a separate conflict. The article may combine different campaigns, which looks like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. AriuCH (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Africa, and France. AriuCH (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose (willing to change): nomination needs verification. Article is effectively a WP:STUB per WP:STUBLENGTH (size doesn't matter); is not linked anywhere (WP:ORPHAN); and per my (cursory) research, only doesn't qualify as a WP:CFORK of Senussi Campaign because even though it quarters off the confrontations between two belligerents in a multi-combatant conflict, it technically covers materials starting before that article. However, this nomination does not seem to engage with the 11 unique sources cited in the article bibliography, and so seems too speculative to merit deletion as a specific outcome; indeed, a search found other sources supporting at minimum changes to Senussi Campaign, and which at maximum might justify this article (or another one using some of its content) existing[1]. Article definitely has a lot of issues, but it is also new, and its creator may be able to improve it (or another one). Willing to change vote if verification invalidates citations.

  [1]: Sources include: Marcuzzi (2022); Kazembeyki (2026) [Arabic] ; van der Waag (2026); Dreyfuss & LeMarc (1980) (snippet); Krause & Larmer (2023) (preview). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  HiddenHistoryPedia, Are you using AI to write your responses? The sources cited so far discuss Senussi conflicts with European powers, but do not establish a distinct "Second French-Senussi War" under this title. One of the cited DOIs (Kazembeyki 2026) also returns an error. Could you provide a source that directly supports the article's title and specific claims? AriuCH (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  Re, AI: A post with high school-level English does not indicate LLM use.

  Re, Sources: The doi is copied from the article, so either the text is improperly OCR'd, the doi has an error, or it is fake (see here). As to the sources themselves, I reckon you should actually read what I wrote, since my reason for citing those sources seems to have been missed: " [sic] a search found other sources supporting at minimum changes to Senussi Campaign, and which at maximum might justify this article (or another one using some of its content) existing". HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  HiddenHistoryPedia, Persian is my first language, and I did read the article you provided. However, I could not find any mention of a "Second French-Senussi War" in it. If you use AI-generated replies again, I will report this to the AI noticeboard. AriuCH (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  Re, The Article: I never claimed that the article mentioned a "Second French-Senussi War", though I doubt that you read the whole thing in such a short time span, given it is 45 pages. I just quoted myself, so I genuinely haven't a clue how you think this is what I said.

  Re, AI: With what evidence? Your best bet was that you could have claimed I hallucinated an article given a false doi, except that I just linked the article, so it's pretty obvious where I got the doi from. Don't reply to me with further AI allegations here: you're cluttering AfD. If you want to continue arguing over that, take it to my talk page. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:03, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see evidence in the provided sources for this specific "war". They definitely fought the French, but I doubt the contents and references in the article. Central Africa is mentioned twice, but the conflict centred on North Africa. I tried to find several of the cited references and failed - evidence is needed that they exist. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09592318.2026.2629444, noted above, doesn't support the article content. According to https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/africa-during-the-scramble-the-desert-order, the first Senussi-French clashes were as part of the Wadai War. Fences&Windows 11:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: Thanks for the source review, @Fences&Windows. Assuming the sources do not exist, my vote probably changes to Delete on grounds of information not being WP:VERIFIABLE, though I was holding hope we could take some other action.

  Re, "Central Africa": In good faith to the article author, the Republic of Chad is often classed as part of Central Africa, and is directly contiguous with the State of Libya. It is possible that a conflict involving a state based in Libya would extend there, which is why that didn't set off alarms... definitely strange nomenclature, though, as I don't usually see Chad classed as "Central Africa" in historical studies, and certainly not Saharan Chad. I feel like that is more based on the Chari river and such.

  Re, Sealion Press: Is this a WP:RELIABLE source? HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Sophia Sinot

Sophia Sinot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject's notability is unclear, as the article is little more than a stub and does not establish why the subject merits a standalone encyclopedia entry. The article also reads as though it may be AI-generated and more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic summary Sittin Courtside Teeda (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to feel like this isn't retaliation for my reverts of the nominator's edits at Tinashe (User talk:Wracking#A message from Sittin Courtside Teeda). I wrote this article, and I did not use AI to write it. Wracking ^talk! 18:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Wellness guru

Wellness guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created with an LLM in the same fashion as was discussed in this previous AfD. Per WP:NOLLM, article creation with LLMs is not allowed, and the RfC that led to NOLLM was explicit that there is no grandfathering-in of LLM-generated articles that existed before the adoption of NOLLM. There is also no provision in NOLLM to allow LLM-generated content that has been reworked by a human: generating article content with LLM is just not allowed. In this AfD I am nominating not only Wellness guru but also

Transnational cinema in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Food Freedom Acts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

African American film score composers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

because they, too, on their talk pages indicate they were generated with an LLM. Einsof (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Popular culture, Internet, and Suspected AI-generated articles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, evaluate individually: This nom (again) ignores WP:LLMPRVOBJ, and decides that "Actually, reversing removal of content is philosophically impossible". If you have issues with an individual article, please actually point them out. Wellness guru is the weakest of the remaining articles, and so we've been prioritizing actively working to improve it. It is rather disappointing that the nominator saw these ongoing improvements and decided to take it as an opportunity to AfD all of them at once.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• It was explained to you repeatedly that WP:LLMPRVOBJ does not constitute a loophole for circumventing WP:NOLLM, which flatly prohibits LLM-generated articles. Einsof (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  Correct, LLMPRVOBJ was not met. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: LLM is a no-go. Full stop. Draft some version of this if you want to, but we don't keep LLM output. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Pharos. The article nominated for deletion was being worked on, and looking at the page history, in fact there was a pretty large cleanup edit made in between the article being de-PRODded and this nomination, along with other smaller ones. This demonstrates, through action, that the article is being fixed and the LLM issues are surmountable. If users have committed to fixing the article (and crucially have demonstrated through action that they are doing it, like on this page), I don’t see why the page needs to be deleted. Nominating a page for deletion while the issues with it are actively being fixed feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The other pages can be revisited later and should be evaluated separately, but they similarly should not be deleted if the outstanding issues are surmountable and users are working to fix them, as it appears to have been expressed here. DraconicDark (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep – the term is examined in Sage journals, The Conversation and The Cut, which is more than a dictionary definition. Kukuryza (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, this fails NOLLM and should have been deleted already. No prejudice against someone else writing a new article on the topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep in support of comments made by Pharos and DraconicDark. The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. It contains the kind of useful information and citations that are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. The community needs to take care to support students and educators who chose to be bold in their approaches to editing. Future students should be allowed to fix this page further.--Mozucat (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. Well, no, one can immediately see that the opening sentences of the article are materially unchanged from when the article debuted in mainspace, which is true of large portions of the article body as well. Any LLM-generated content is problematic LLM-generated content, even if it is subsequently massaged by a human. WP:NOLLM, established by community consensus, simply prohibits it. Einsof (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Te Komititanga

Te Komititanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

LLM-generated article. See talk page for evidence. Features hallucinations and close paraphrasing. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Comment. As well as the substantive issues pointed out on the talk page, there's also a very obvious WP:AILIST at the bottom. Also Observers and urban planners frequently cite its success as proof of the positive impact of pedestrianisation is an example of WP:AIATTR. I'm not voting delete just yet in case someone wants to go ahead and stubbify it (or better rewrite it from scratch), because the topic does seem notable. Kisseran (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete as completely LLM-generated. Thanks for the thorough run-down of LLM signs in the article. I added another on the talk page. The square may be notable, but the article can't be used as it is. Either someone should WP:STARTOVER by blanking the page and writing a stub from scratch, or if nobody has time to do that, it should be deleted and one day someone may write a new version that is authentic. Lijil (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  As a pedestrianised section of Queen Street, it doesn't need a stub article. Confuciou (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete. Obvious AI slop, and not really notable. Confuciou (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Delete per talk. If this article is notable I hope that someone will recreate it soon. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Per above. Also triggered LLM Paste check in the initial edit. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as NOLLM. Khalitate (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete for the AI reasons already stated, but I don't think there should be a prejudice against remaking the article in future by an interested editor who doesn't use an LLM to do so. Turnagra (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I am the original author of the article and admit to using an LLM for research and sketching out the article. I have read the appropriate guidelines surrounding LLM use and will not use it ever again for Wikipedia-related purposes.

I believe that the article is notable. Most of the article was written by hand, but suffered from poor reference placement (which led to suspicions that there were hallucinations). I have added the correct sources in the correct locations to the best of my knowledge now, and rewritten both human and AI generated sections of text that read as promotional, flowery, or nonsensical.

I personally think that the article is still salvageable as honestly it's mostly human rather than AI slop. As the original author though I don't know if I am allowed to be the one rewriting it, as I'm not well versed in Wikipedia guidelines (hence this discussion existing in the first place)! Kika.txt (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

You are allowed to be the one rewriting it, and you are encouraged to do so. Currently, however, you are not rewriting the article, but editing the existing, AI-generated article. I would recommend that you stubbify the article (reduce it down to a single sentence or two), cite the sources that demonstrate notability, and then gradually expand the article at your own leisure. Kisseran (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see what you mean, so 'rewriting' means deleting and writing from scratch, rather than paraphrasing and tweaking sections. If the article ends up being deleted, will I lose the progress on it? Could it perhaps be moved to a Draft so that I can rewrite it leisurely alongside anyone else interested, and submit it for review once good enough? Kika.txt (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

At this point, you'll have to convince the AfD participants here to vote for draftification, if you want the article to be draftified. You might wish to save the links to the sources you've gathered somewhere off-wiki, if this is deleted. Your options here are either to reduce the article down to one or two sentences and convince everyone here that what remains is both free of LLM text and demonstrates notability, or to let this article get deleted, and create a new article later. Kisseran (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy for it to be draftified as one of the delete !votes if the original author is going to work on bringing it up to scratch. I'd be happy to help where I can too. Turnagra (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The issues with the prose are not just verifiability but also close paraphrasing by the LLM. Close paraphrasing is a plagiarism issue so the text cannot simply be adjusted, it needs to be fully rewritten. I'm not against dratifying but it'd be better to rewrite the whole thing in which case the retention of the original version is unnecessary. If you plan on starting a new version from scratch a draft can be created regardless of this AfD outcome. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep. The NZ Herald, Stuff, RNZ, Newsroom and The Spinoff cover the square itself, so notability holds; the LLM text and close paraphrasing are a rewrite job, not a deletion rationale. Kukuryza (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Out of the references provided only Stuff and The Spinoff (hardly a serious publication) cover the square itself. The NZ Herald and RNZ references are passing mentions. Also LLM is a valid deletion rationale, it is even a speedy deletion rationale when it is blatantly obvious. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

AceMob OG (Rapper)

AceMob OG (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. All sources are primary or lists. Likely AI generated. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:31, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Zambia. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:31, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: If the article is kept, it should be moved to AceMob OG (unnecessary disambiguator). - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:43, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Agree Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 21:02, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete... bro is this guy's only fan ^[Humor] — in all seriousness, I would look into if User:Depaps is COIing. Also, they kept moving it out of draftspace it seems. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 21:02, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This is basically an unreferenced BLP; the sources are just databases that say he exists, which are not very strong and don't indicate notability. DraconicDark (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete Zero notability besides a few databases and  Looks AI-generated to me. Goobab (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Delete – ISNI, MusicBrainz and lyrics sites are databases, and the article has no citations (WP:V, WP:MUSICBIO). Kukuryza (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:NOLLM. No reliable sources indicating notability. MidnightMayhem (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

GRB 211211A

GRB 211211A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be generated by AI Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related AfD discussions. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep – a gamma-ray burst with dedicated papers in Nature and MNRAS is a textbook WP:NASTRO pass. Kukuryza (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: the topic may be notable, but LLM-written articles are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. I suggest instead adding a link to WP:REQASTRO after deletion. I've tagged it with a warning template. Praemonitus (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Cannibalism in the Arab world

Cannibalism in the Arab world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AI-generated "X in Y" article, and heavy on WP:OR, with far too much reliance on primary sources, none of which discuss the topic as a cohesive whole. Rather, it's a bunch of cobbled-together mentions of the topic in disparate sources. Violates WP:NOLLM, WP:OR, and I'm getting hints of WP:NONAZIS as well, with passages like "the Quran does not command cannibalism..." WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related AfD discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Wow! After all these years of editing and participating in countless AfD's for almost 2 decades, this is the first time I have been called a Nazi - which clearly goes against Wiki's civility policies. Calling another editor a Nazi is not what we do here. Real Nazis will laugh hearing somene call me, of all people, a Nazi! Comment on the edits not the editor. Calling me a Nazi is totally unacceptable and goes against our policies, and I'll leave it in the capable hands of the closing Admin and other editors. I initially opened a discussion at Talk:Cannibalism in the Arab world#Tag when the article was initially tagged - and another editor and I engaged in good, honest, and respectful dialogue, and in good faith. And for the record, I am voting Keep! The article is notable and there are plenty of RS. Editorial issues are not grounds for deletion. Tamsier (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Please calm down. I didn't call you a Nazi, I said the tone and phrasing brought WP:NONAZIS to mind. And the article is almost certainly an LLM product, so the presence of sources is irrelevant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Ferrock

Ferrock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:TNT. It is uncontested that a LLM has been used in the creation of this article. Some cleanup has been attempted but a quick verification of selected excerpts still shows signs of problems. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 09:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 09:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: TNT sounds good. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Delete – promotional green-tech blogs are the whole sourcing for a claimed material (WP:GNG, WP:RS). Kukuryza (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as TNT. Khalitate (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

List of electronic music producers with a doctorate

List of electronic music producers with a doctorate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason to be a standalone list. Doesn't meet NLIST. AI generated and COI. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, and Music. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A useless and irrelevant list. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC).

• Delete. Why not list left-handed electronic music producers? Music producers with marriage certificates? Producers who like tofu. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - not a notable cross-section of list criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable WP:CROSSCAT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Creator can start a homepage. Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - just to pile on. A list of people who happen to have two coincidental characteristics flunks WP:NLIST unless that combination of characteristics happens to be notable in its own right. I am a Wikipedia volunteer with a doctorate, but there's no such list with me in it, nor should there be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:23, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make NLIST. Khalitate (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete fails LLM, NLIST and GNG. Just compilation of non notable critera Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
• Snow. Could somebody put this wretched AfD out of its misery? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC).

Veridical perception

Veridical perception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks suspiciously AI-generated. Most of the page was created in just one edit and the lists starting with bold text in the "Anecdotal evidence" and "Prospective studies" sections are common WP:AISIGNS. Shocksingularity (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Susana Villa

Susana Villa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously declined AfC multiple times, moved to mainspace twice, and both times was draftified by other editors for lack of notability. The correct mainspace title Susan Villa then got creation protected due to the moves, then Lau125 (talk · contribs) moved it to this incorrect title in mainspace anyway. I don't think the current sources meet notability. They are either primary or nonsignificant. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Television, Fashion, and Spain. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NOLLM. See f.ex. the exhaustive AISUMM in Diff/1376595436. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Delete – local promotional sites and her employer's page are not independent coverage (WP:BASIC). Kukuryza (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Mannequin Records

Mannequin Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly AI-generated. It does have WP:AISIGNS, as flagged by another editor, and an LLM detector has added to the evidence, to make it nearly conclusive. The link to the check is here Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: while the nomination itself is entirely about the LLM use, it cannot be overlooked either that this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure almost since its creation in August 2025. Even if the LLM issues are sufficiently surmountable (i.e., not to G15 levels), that would not necessarily resolve any notability issues. (No opinion on any of this.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Irrespective of any AI/SI contributions, which must needs be rooted out, the sourcing suggests sufficient attention to meet notability. Since this is a reissue label, the usual WP:MUSIC assessment based on roster isn't really appropriate here, but based on GNG-style assessment, it'd pass. Chubbles (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

2026 Bengaluru Freedom Park protests

2026 Bengaluru Freedom Park protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this even meet WP:NEVENT? There's obvious unnatural title cases, which I can only imagine that this was created with LLM assistance. While all sources here are reliable, we should probably draftify this since it started just yesterday. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 14:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. SimpleObjects-9ei 🍂/🌰/🤗 (see talk) 14:05, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge Part of 2026 Anti-CEC protests, we don't need separate articles here. 2026 Mumbai Shivaji Park protests should also similarly be merged into it. Gotitbro (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  Merging will reserve the article name for redirection, see Wikipedia:MERGE.

  Besides unnatural title case and notability for reserving the name, its also wrong to call it 'protests' in plural. I've shifted the content to main article 2026 anti-CEC protests and it would've made sense to use proposed deletion, WP:PROD instead of AfD, WP:AFD because of multiple issue of this page. I've initiated the same for 2026 Mumbai Shivaji Park protests. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, a single plural marker doesn't inherently break article/title validity. Gotitbro (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

  Huh, that's so strange lol

  Thanks for the reply! ^^ Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete I'm not voting merge, because the protest isn't even notable enough to reserve the name just to redirect to the main article and also the title is wrong, it uses "protests" when its really a single protest, I think the user created it in anticipation of more protests. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – This was part of the broader 2026 anti-CEC protests. The event can be covered in the main article, as a separate article is not necessary.Kartheek1025 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
• Merge as part of broader 2026 anti-CEC protests. GenuineArt (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. Doesn't make NEVENT for standalone article. Khalitate (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Morărescu Affair

Morărescu Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic is clearly notable, even though I must say the amount of sources I've found, at least after some quick searches, is certainly underwhelming for such a deadly event. Nevertheless, to me this article seems clearly generated by AI at least to an extent. It is obvious considering the egregious mistypings present in the article, such as "Averudul" (Adevărul) and "Zalea Condreanu" ((Corneliu) Zelea Codreanu). These are some pretty strange typos for a human to make. And of course, there's also the seventh reference's link, containing the following: "&st_source=ai_overview&r=0.185,0.112,0.315,0.397,0".

The article is relatively short. It could therefore be saved relatively easily. The entire text and all cited sources should be manually checked to ensure the information in this article is verified, with everything not verifiable being promptly removed. The article would also require some slight NPOV language improvements. This AfD might attract someone willing to put this effort. I personally am not, because it is not possible to do so for every new AI slop article popping out, and it is also the burden only and exclusively of the article's author. Because such a person appearing is not a guarantee, I propose moving this out of mainspace for now.

By the way, Denninithan should be sanctioned or at least warned over AI usage. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, Israel, and Romania. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: coming from WP:AINB#Denninithan, people are allowed to retrieve sources from LLMs, just not use the LLM as the source. Also, LLMs usually don't make spelling mistakes Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  Keep per my comments at the AINB thread, WP:V checks should probably still be done to ensure that they haven't been violating WP:RSML Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW I believe them re RSML, it's a very rare thing to see anyways Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:43, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Kowal2701 and my own comments at the AINB thread. Typos alone are already a sign of human-written text, not AI-written text, and those typos highlighted in the nom seem particularly human. Kisseran (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

AI isn't prone to making typos, most of my typo's admittedly come basically from me misremembering some name in my head and typing that misremembered version into the article. I don't think its too unusual for someone to remember a name in a language they don't speak imperfectly, especially since many of those mistakes line up with English phonology, for instance many English words have an "nd" (band, sand, land, canned etc.) sound in them so my brain misremembered Codreanu as Condreanu. I misremembered Zelea as Zalea because I pronounce Zelea as zuh-lee-uh, which under English spelling would be written as Zalea. The name Maria is pronounced muh-ree-uh, and is spelling maria so my brain just defaulted to applying those same rules to a Romanian name.

I do often use AI's to search for sources but I do also search myself and using AI's to find sources is completely allowed, and when I use AI's to find a source I check the source myself to make sure they're reliable. I NEVER use AI as a source. Denninithan (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep there's no problem with using AIs to find sources, and the typos you listed are pretty much definitive proof that this isn't AI generated - that's not something an AI would do, but that's something a human might do with complicated/unfamiliar names. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Damaris Wambui Waiganjo

Damaris Wambui Waiganjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kenyan politician who has never held public office. She does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. She lost the 2021 Jubilee nomination for the Kiambaa by-election, received the party ticket in 2022, but finished third. Never elected. WP:NPOL guides that a candidate who have not held office are not notable just for being a candidate or running the election. Sources in generail are primary or official, a student blog, routine election coverage and similar not in depth coverage. Ureekish (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Ureekish (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. She has never held office and fails WP:NPOL, and the coverage is routine campaign reporting in People Daily and The Star about the 2021 Jubilee primary and the 2022 race, in which she finished third with 8,424 votes. --Ell Pollar (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make NPOL. Khalitate (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep — Although Damaris Wambui Waiganjo has never held elected public office, the available independent coverage supports consideration under Wikipedia's general notability standard.

The coverage is not limited to a single election result or brief mention. K24 published an article on the emerging political contenders for the Kiambaa parliamentary seat in April 2021, identifying Waiganjo as one of the aspirants and discussing her political background and campaign. K24, "Emerging faces in the battle to succeed Paul Koinange in Kiambaa".

People Daily subsequently published a separate article in April 2021 covering the Jubilee Kiambaa aspirants, including Waiganjo's position as a Kiambu County liaison official, her campaign and her statements concerning the nomination process. People Daily, "Kiambaa Jubilee candidates hope for fair primaries".

Her political activities also received further independent coverage following the Jubilee nomination. People Daily reported on her brief announcement that she was joining UDA and her subsequent decision to remain in Jubilee, including her explanation of the events. People Daily, "Pressure or persuasion?" The Star independently reported on her unsuccessful Jubilee primary campaign and subsequent brief move to UDA before her return to Jubilee. The Star, "Koinange family locked out of race for Kiambaa".

Coverage continued after the 2021 by-election. In December 2021, People Daily published a further article specifically about Waiganjo leaving Jubilee for Chama Cha Kazi and her political plans. People Daily, "Former Kiambaa aspirant dumps Jubilee Party for Moses Kuria's CCK".

Her political activity was also covered during the 2022 general election. The Star reported on Waiganjo as the Jubilee candidate for Kiambaa and quoted her publicly challenging aspects of the electoral process and calling for a recount. The Star, "We will challenge election results - Jubilee leaders".

There was also subsequent independent coverage of Waiganjo's political activity. In May 2024, The Star identified her as a former Kiambaa parliamentary aspirant and reported her participation in the Limuru III political meeting and her comments about political cooperation in the Mount Kenya region. The Star, "Limuru III meet won't endorse anyone but address Mt Kenya issues".

Taken together, these are multiple independent secondary sources covering Waiganjo's political activities across the 2021 Kiambaa by-election, the Jubilee nomination dispute, her subsequent party movement, the 2022 general election and later political activity. The case for notability therefore does not depend merely on her having been an unsuccessful candidate or on primary election records.

The general notability guideline considers whether a subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The existence of multiple independent reports over several years is therefore relevant to this discussion.

I therefore believe the article should be kept and evaluated under the general notability guideline rather than deleted solely because she has not held public office. Kamaukeega9 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The was written by LLM. S0091 (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom and also written by a LLM. S0091 (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, it is clearly AI-generated. Reference nr. 1 in the current revision returns 404, and has only ever been saved by archive.org as a 404 page the same day that it was added to the article. The same reference pointed to a working URL before it was altered in Diff/1378837511, which does not exactly inspire confidence. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:43, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Delete – election-commission records and candidate notices are not significant coverage (WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC). Kukuryza (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would be fine with redirect but they are not mentioned in any other articles so there is no appropriate target. S0091 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Paramount Primal

Paramount Primal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Paramount Primal § Merge with Paramount Pictures

 – FaviFake (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Paramount Pictures

Paramount Primal is a genre label of Paramount Pictures that was named in July 2026. The only source is a syndicated Variety report on a Nightmare on Elm Street deal, which mentions the label and its two heads in a few sentences. The content fits as a short section of Paramount Pictures until the label receives significant coverage. Ell Pollar (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: unrelated to the nominator's concerns, this was tagged by someone else as having been pasted from an LLM. That might make a straight merge less appealing; I don't think we can rule out a TNT deletion, adding human-written material about this label to Paramount Pictures, and simply creating a fresh redirect afterward. (No formal opinion on the matter.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I’ve added a list of films section so there can be an opportunity for more sources Low-gee7212014 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn’t merge it because there is more stuff on the page and just like Warner Bros. Clockwork, they haven’t released any movies yet but has some info about the company Low-gee7212014 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge As with anything involving this deal, I prefer to wait and see if they decide that even putting further effort into a film label that doesn't even have a film out in the market yet is worth it, if the films even come out or become regular old studio releases, or they get shoved off onto VOD or streaming. Nathannah • 📮 23:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Interspecific social behaviour in animals

Interspecific social behaviour in animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• Merge to an appropriate target. This situation is as tragic as one monkey adopting another species' juvenile and inadvertently harming it. It's such a cute idea for an article, but everyone should know that we are not a soapbox and we are not Grokpedia. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Merge – a one-line article with no sources, duplicating an existing topic (WP:V, WP:CFORK). Kukuryza (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• I don’t understand. One Line article with no sources? To what are you referring? ~2026-53926-43 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep this page or merge it with Interspecies friendship into Interspecific social behaviour per and , for example. The key words are "social behavior". No merge to Symbiosis please because it is a wider and partly different subject (the symbiosis typically assume a permanent/long-term physical coexistence of different species, which is not necessarily the case here, e.g. the "friendship" of cat and mouse does happen, but a social behavior). My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, this page describes the interspecific social behavior (which is not necessarily a "friendship", but can be interspecific competition) specifically for primates, while Interspecies friendship seems to cover all species. Hence, these are different overlapped subjects. I do not think we need to delete any of them because the content is well sourced on the both. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. The redirect page Interspecific interactions should be changed to disambig. page because they may refer to symbiosis, Interspecies friendship, interspecific competition, predation, parasitism, hybridisation, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  Draftify or Outright Delete as it's clearly AI generated and I'm getting sick and tired of having to gauge how far I'm willing to go to resist WP:NOLLM because it's encyclopedic content. The more we let stuff like this get through, the more difficult it gets down the road for us to determine when someone couldn't be bothered to do a simple rewrite. Wikipedia is a work in progress, if people are inspired by the sourcing present they can collect it and try again. I'm not handing over the value of one of my and tens of thousands of other peoples' greatest gifts to Sam Altman so that someone else, who felt it unnecessary to take the time to learn how to write content here, will get the chance to get that warm, fuzzy feeling that they're advancing the race by taking credit for output produced by a machine.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think it should be noted that absolutely nothing here should be merged without a substantial copyedit to remove anything that sniffs of LLM-produced content.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  I object to your accusations, CSGinger. This article started out as a AI answer to a question on pet keeping by animals. I ended up not liking that angle. To repeat what I said above, I then did the following: 1. I found and read all of the references; 2. I redrafted it to focus on general social relations among animals (subsequently narrowed to only primates). To assert that this article is “clearly AI generated” is unfair. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Dr Dobeaucoup I do genuinely apologize for the harsh language, as I was extremely angry at something else here at the time I wrote that reply (see my most recent user page edit if you’re curious, and thus will concede that I should have taken some time to breathe before getting involved here or elsewhere this evening; nevertheless, I’m still greatly concerned by the prose as it stands, which still reads very similar to what you would see in a typical line of reasoning offered by an LLM (e.g. seemingly attempting to answer a question not directly posed in the text, bulleting lists as opposed to exploring each in an individual section, etc.), even if you reframed it in a more personal style. That’s my concern.

  I do believe that you did as you say, because there are parts that read far more natural than others. The problem is, when you ask AI to generate anything for you, you’re going to rely on its style and structuring even if you don’t realize it. We cannot let that proliferate here, because then literally what is the point of what we’re doing. People don’t need us when they can just get AI to answer the question for them, especially if we end up just regurgitating what AI has already said to give its answer a slightly wider audience. Even if we make it somewhat more accessible, it’s just as easy to go type the prompt in to ChatGPT. The only difference is that ours is a stable version that doesn’t shift depending on the way you ask the question. If you can indicate that you fundamentally changed the text from the original answer to the prompt, I’ll happily strike the comment above. Otherwise I remain grounded in my view of things.

  Regards, and apologies again,

  CSGinger14 (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for getting back to me. I fundamentally changed the text, and the logic and flow of the article are entirely mine. However, there are still sentences that are AI generated. I would estimate that, in the current version, about 30-40% of the words are AI generated. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

  One last thing, for info. People keep mentioning the bulletin points. They are mine. I often use bullet points. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete as LLM output, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Spall strength

Spall strength (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• 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)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep – spall strength is a standard concept in shock physics, and the article cites 37 distinct sources in the journal literature. How the text was drafted is a cleanup matter: WP:NOLLM is not a notability criterion and WP:ATD applies. Kukuryza (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:47, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri

'Ubayd ibn 'Abdillah Al-Jabiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has several concerns regarding source independence WP:RS / WP:IS, potential WP:COI, and WP:LLM-assisted editing.

Most sources appear closely connected to the subject or his teachings, with limited independent coverage to support WP:GNG. Additionally, I suggest reviewing the article history carefully. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. AriuCH (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:38, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I did a news search in Arabic which came up with a couple of fairly perfunctory obituaries and nothing else, unfortunately With lots of false hits to partial matches. My impression is he may have been notable but I can’t spend the time digging through false positives to be sure. Given the lack of genuinely independent sourcing in the current article I’d suggest stripping a lot of the content out as even if the subject is notable overall I don’t think we’ll find independent sources for all this content. Mccapra (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

OpenAI Operator

OpenAI Operator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suspected AI generation, some content writing style is very AI. 菜國人 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. 菜國人 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

Merge: Could be merged to ChatGPT#Agents or OpenAI, being described as the "predecessor" to ChatGPT agents. Do not feel like the content is notable of being an entirely separate article. Sevenstxrsquid 🌊 07:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep – the product has been covered by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times among others, and suspected AI drafting is a reason to rewrite, not to delete (WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST). Kukuryza (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Kukuryza, this thing has been covered by Wall Street Journal, Wired and The New York Times, which is reliable sources for Wikipedia. This is better rewrite this article than delete, per: Wikipedia:Clean up the AI before deleting. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 20:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to ChatGPT#Agents as a more precise target. I agree with the reasoning by HyperAccelerated. The article, while containing independent coverage, is mostly sourced to OpenAI and sometimes fails verification, for example, In July 2025, ChatGPT was announced. This agent contains Operator's browser control capabilities. Operator was retired at the end of August 2025 is sourced to Introducing Operator from January 2025. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:57, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

House of Dust (architecture)

House of Dust (architecture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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.

My view is delete, although I can see the value of stubbifying as there is a high possibility WP:GNG has been met. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Stubify - GNG has been met, but AI seems to be present. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  Hello @Jishara, I found this article:https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/specification/house-of-dust-rome-by-antonino-cardillo-architect

  and this:https://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/05/house-of-dust-by-antonino-cardillo/ ~2026-52864-32 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hi! Thanks for pointing those out, they support that GNG has been met. However, if the article was made with AI, it does still need to be stubified. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hi again. I have stubified the article. Please confirm whether it is suitable now. ~2026-53473-17 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Boynamedsue @Gommeh @Jishara @Spiderone, can I interpret your silence as a positive response? ~2026-53884-72 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  No opinion from me with regards to that (pinging me wasn't really necessary as all I did was relist the discussion to get more opinions, haha). In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:47, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like it's been stubified now - one sentence. i think that that should be good. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you @Jishara. Could you please remove the tags? ~2026-53872-75 (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been stubified and the sourcing appears to be sufficient. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lorraine Crane (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – covered by Dezeen and the Architects' Journal alongside the Architectural Association's own documentation, which meets WP:GNG. Kukuryza (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Kurukh phonology

Kurukh phonology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

page created using AI from the start, violation of WP:NEWLLM scope_creep^Talk 05:01, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, India, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Tripura, West Bengal, and Suspected AI-generated articles. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 05:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

• Comment I'm quite familiar with phonology, so I'll go see now if I can rewrite the article from the sources given. Wreaderick (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Please ping me when you have done more work on this. Bearian (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

History of banking in Malta

History of banking in Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The introduction appears to be LLM-generated, while the Timeline is WP:OR. Vgbypw (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Malta. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

Therefore, there should be specific identification of the entries considered to constitute original research. XonMalti (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Did you use AI to write the page? Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Introduction:

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.

Conclusion

The bulk of the page text was not written using AI. XonMalti (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use LLM for responses. See WP:AITALK. – The Grid (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't read like an LLM response to me. Pangram and GPTZero both label this as human-written. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They admitted to using LLM in the text. AI detection isn't 100% perfect. (who separates their response into three subheadings?) – The Grid (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

They omitted a colon after "Conclusion", did not use Markdown, and directly admitted AI use (LLMs usually try to be evasive). Kelob2678 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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.

Logs: 2026-09 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Some of the articles have been rewritten and I believe all concerns have been addressed or clarified XonMalti (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

  WP:TNT applies for stuff like this regardless of notability. – The Grid (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The introduction was amended so the AI issue should have been addressed.

Happy to see that topic is considered notable and the timeline is adequately referenced.

So are there any remaining issues in the current page version? XonMalti (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously a notable topic, but the use of AI means I don't trust the accuracy of the article because of potential hallucinatory text. Best to WP:TNT this and start over with an editor(s) not using LLM.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  To repeat – The introduction is a summary of a very good academic article done by myself. It then went through AI to improve academic English, neutral tone etc. It has since be written again so there is no AI. XonMalti (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to List of banks in Malta: rewritten to remove LLM and OR, in a new History section. After the merge, the page should be title-swapped with Banking in Malta, which is currently a redir to it.
  A single, cohesive article about banking in Malta, with history and list of banks, would serve readers best. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have a comprehensive Draft:Banking in Malta which got shot down amongst others because it was too large. One of the recommendations was to have specific articles going into specific areas. Hence this article. List of banks in Malta in Malta is written by another author, focusing mainly on current Maltese banks subject to EU supervision. As explained further up the timeline itself is not OR! I don't agree there is any LLM and OR in the current version. XonMalti (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep and remove the LLM-generated opening. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no LLM-generated opening and no OR. I feel this discussion is going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I invite anyone to pinpoint any specific text which is deemed problematic. XonMalti (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Immigrant entrepreneurship

Immigrant entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. Cubnorth (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. This might shed some light. — Iadmc♫^talk  06:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• 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 appreciate the work done by all editors, including those critcal of my work JondeJon1 (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 06:33, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEWLLM. The topic is notable, but the article is AI-generated. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• Comment what the indications of AI generation here, still learning!AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
• Additional comment The rewriting has unfortunately not changed my stance that the topic is too broad to say anything meaningful. Cubnorth (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

  If anything is salvageable from this, I'd suggest a merge to Middleman minority or Model minority

  CSGinger14 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment On a path forward: if the consensus is that the current article does not meet mainspace standards, I would ask that it be moved to draft space rather than deleted outright. This would allow me to reduce it to a stub, which is the standard remediation for articles with suspected LLM content, and to resubmit it through the Articles for Creation process. On the merge suggestion: merging with Middleman minority or Model minority would not be appropriate. Both of those are subsections of the broader topic of immigrant entrepreneurship rather than equivalent or parent concepts. JondeJon1 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Keep – this is an established research field with literature in Oxford University Press journals, NBER working papers and OECD reports, all cited in the article. Breadth is an editing problem, not grounds for deletion. Kukuryza (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Frankly if both the suggested articles are subtopics within it then I'd argue we can use their notability to establish its. The notion of immigrant entrepreneurship necessarily derives from the sources that discuss them [referenced destination pages], and I know for a fact the topic is covered at length elsewhere. It's half the justification in the West for allowing in migrants/refugees (y'know, other than the fact that they're human beings and the notion of state boundaries is entirely arbitrary).

  CSGinger14 (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)