|
- Areaware (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)
Originally a deleted LLM-generated draft, it was resurrected and partially cleaned up, but not totally. Take for example the gem of "Areaware received coverage in major design and general-interest publications including The New York Times,.[5] Fast Company,[6] Bloomberg[7], Dezeen,[8] The International Design Yearbook,[9] Design Milk,[10] Core77,[11][4] Sight Unseen,[12][13] DesignBoom,[14] Design Hunger,[15] Design Culture,[16] and Cool Hunting.[17]" , a typical tell of words devoid of significance. I attempted to do some more cleanup, including removing some non-RSes (like Core77, a site which allows paid features), but it soon became clear that the sources in the article failed to establish anything close to WP:NCORP standards. Further searching didn't really do much either. Sources still in there are as basic as a job-listing website with a paragraph blurb describing the company, and other surface-level mentions with nothing in-depth. Suffice it to say, this doesn't meet our notability standards, combined with the dubious LLM creation, means that we shouldn't be keeping this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Ohio. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment A quick Google search of "Areaware" followed by "nytimes" gives a long list of potential sources going back over 15 years which detail objects Areaware has sold. I'm seeing plenty of potential sources outside of the NY Times too. As LLM use has become mainstream, we cannot fault amateur editors from using it to draft articles. Thriley (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
"I'm seeing plenty of potential sources outside of the NY Times too." Then you should have added them to the article before moving it out of draft space, or better yet, started from scratch since the thing was pretty blatantly tainted to the core. "As LLM use has become mainstream, we cannot fault amateur editors from using it to draft articles." Yes, yes we can in fact fault them. Especially when this was prompted by your own note of a message on your talk page, which said "hi, I am Dorothy Wiggins son Noel and am wondering how to get a Wikipedia page for my company AREAWARE". Some weeks later, an LLM slop draft popped up, got rightly rejected, and G15ed. I also find it a bit strange that a temp account (presumably the account owner but logged out) responded to the AFC acceptance notice you triggered a mere 8 minutes after the fact, and apparently referred to you by real first name. This is rather irregular; do you have an explanation for this? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I contacted them because I want images of the various objects they have sold over the years to be uploaded to commons. I never have edited for pay and never will. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- LLMs are not going away and I don't find it acceptable for us to stick our heads in the sand about it. Thriley (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Deacon Vorbis: It is hard to believe that the company isn't notable with coverage like this in New York Magazine: . I don't appreciate being accused of violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia by putting the draft into mainspace. I enjoy reading about industrial design and find coverage on Wikipedia lacking. Thriley (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I have left notes on the talk pages of User:Silver seren, who has done a lot of work on articles submitted through AFC, and User:Cl3phact0, who has created a number of design related articles. I would appreciate their opinion here. Thriley (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'd never heard of the company before you brought it up, but a quick glance at the designers who've done projects with them over the years certainly indicates that it is of historical interest from a design perspective. I'll take a closer look tomorrow, but if the issues are mostly technical/sourcing related and can be resolved, then we probably ought to keep this. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. The behind the scenes aspect is what appealed to me. Here's an article in Print I just found which details the company further: Thriley (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Unit 4400 (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 PRODed and the proposal was rejected adducing that "this org is notable". However, the article represents a textbook case for WP:TNT, as the entire entry is built upon a foundation of policy violations that cannot be remedied through simple editing. The most significant issue is the systematic violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. While the article is presented as an objective overview, an analysis of the citations shows that the text serves merely as an echo chamber for a single belligerent's military narrative. Every substantial claim, from the existence and designation of "Unit 4400" to the specific roles and alleged deaths of its members, is traced back to a primary military source (the IDF). The article subsequently strips away the necessary attribution found in those sources, presenting partisan assertions as uncontested facts.
The sourcing itself is an example of source padding and ref-spamming designed to create a false impression of a broad media consensus. Sources 1 and 4 are identical articles from a partisan think tank (FDD), while Sources 8 and 10 are identical copies of the same AP report. Of the ten provided citations, nine are non-independent, partisan think tanks, state-owned outlets, or unedited syndicated feeds (such as the NDTV source, which explicitly admits to lacking editorial oversight). Only one source, AP News, qualifies as a high-quality RS; however, it is used in a way that fundamentally misrepresents its reporting. The AP report focuses primarily on Lebanese internal security and Hezbollah's denials, mentioning the "Unit 4400" claim only at the end of the piece as a statement attributed to the Israeli military. By cherry-picking this single quote and ignoring the neutral context of the source, the article violates WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.
There is also undeniable evidence of AI-generated content, with indicators such as WP:OAICITE, WP:AILIST, and WP:AICURLY pointing to a process of WP:LLM generation. This article was posted by a confirmed sockpuppet whose dozens of other articles follow this exact modus operandi, relying on AI generated sources and stating controversial claims originating from military sources as facts. Because the article's very title and premise are derived from unattributed military claims rather than independent verification, there is no neutral version to revert to. The only viable solution is deletion. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Deleted per WP:G11. मल्ल (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC) (non-admin closure) मल्ल (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ichafu (headdress) (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 is a new AfD following on from the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichafu (headdress) due to widespread disruption. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Dolpina (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
An assessment as of version 1344846845
The majority of the information in the "etymology" section is either completely fabricated, or it is not contained in any sources provided. Not only is it an attempt at original research, the sources cited contain absolutely nothing about the etymology of “ichafu”.
Likewise the entirety of the “history” section, the “form and construction” section, the “cultural significance” section, and the “evolution” section contains no information or sources on the word “Ichafu”.
It seems that the authors of this article hope people will just blindly trust the written text without verifying the sources.
The article also attempts to dispute linguistic works that have sourced the word Ichafu from french Chiffon (fabric) yet the sources used to "dispute" these claims yet again mention absolutely nothing about the word "ichafu".
The admittance to the use of LLMs by some of the authors is relevant here, and it’s hard to ignore that on the same date this ichafu article was created, several accounts attempted to vandalise the Gele (head tie) page that had been in existence for years.
I would have suggested that a discussion around cultural appropriation and diffusion surrounding these terms may be relevant, as to my knowledge, the most relevant source around diffusion of “headties” between these two groups in nigeria (Yoruba and Igbo) come from a 1955 journal titled “Improvement Associations among the Afikpo Ibo” quote:
—“These women wore Yoruba cloths as well as the Yoruba head-tie”
—"the Yoruba style of women's head-tie, worn by afikpo (Igbo) women who have been in other areas of Nigeria.
Page 23
Unfortunately, aside from this newly added image by Yeminimal of an Igbo woman with a modest scarf from a collection by anthropologist Northcote Thomas in 1910-1911, none of the images used in this article have any sources confirming that they are “ichafu” as claimed, rather most are known forms of the widely diffused and easily recognisable Yoruba Gele. This article is wholly made up of unverifiable claims, WP:original research, gross misinformation, and irrelevant AI bloat. It doesn’t come anywhere close to meeting the criteria of WP:Notability that requires citation from WP:reliable sources. Sohvyan (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:G15. Even if we ignore the clear AI-generated text signs in prose and style issues (thematic breaks before headings, a thing which is also an AI-generated text sign because LLMs tend to do this a lot, but basically no human does this, even less so a human knowledgeable with Wikipedia style conventions), there is at least 1 reference to a completely irrelevant work ("Achebe, Chinua. Things fall Apart. p. 71.", which is a novel). sapphaline (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- And before anyone tries to see if the page mentions the head covering, it doesn't. And the context of the book does not fit at all here. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per G15. AI slop.
🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 20:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously this is a thing, but this is a TNT candidate if ever there was one. Just for yucks, I took a look at the most frequently used citation, the 1904 English–Ibo–French Dictionary. There's no page references, and since it's solely alphabetized in English, well. But going through the article, it claims that the term is categorized under "head-dress" (with "coiffure" as a French cognate), which is false: the book uses "Akwa-isi" and "asusu-isi" instead. Ravenswing 21:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per G15, as the references are bullshit. Tom Cringle's Log is a novel that has nothing to do with the
subject subject; page 69 of the actual book does not mention anything about headdresses, and, as far as in-text searches for "scarf" and "head" tell me, neither does the rest. So is, as sapphaline noted, Things Fall Apart. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 21:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- To add, salt Ichafu (headdress) and Ichafu per below. The horde of meatpuppets that disrupted the first nomination will surely recreate the page with similar AI slop if it is not salted. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 22:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Per all the above. We need more articles on non-Western subjects, but they should do their subjects justice and be of the quality they deserve. This article doesn't do any of that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete While we need articles in this topic area, this artisan slopfarm-to-table plate is a bad enough dish that it would be far easier for a good faith editor to start over than try to salvage this one, so WP:TNT is back on the menu. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Nigeria. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and WP:TNT per above. Obvious case of irredeemable AI slop. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and recreate: As noted by other editors, the current version appears to be AI-generated and does not meet Wikipedia’s content standards as is. That said, the topic itself may be notable and is welcome diversity. Once deleted, I intend to take time to recreate the article properly, using reliable sources and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. DentistRecommended (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Aren't you the user who said "Yorubas cant cook egusi soup" in your ethnic rant on the egusi talk page when you couldn't comply with sources (you were). I admire the disguise but there are no reliable source on this topic as it isn't a traditional headpiece of any sort but a word for scarf in igbo language. Its like creating articles for words for scarf in different languages like spanish, Portuguese, kikongo, swahili, zulu or chinese, on English Wikipedia and trying to disguise it as a cultural piece. Dolpina (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Dolpina (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and salt This article is AI slop that escaped the factory and landed on wikipedia's forehead and due to the chaotic first nomination for deletion there was canvassing, ai sloppage, and socking, I think its high time that we absolutely BLOW THIS THING UP AND NEVER LET IT BACK ON WIKIPEDIA.
- I would also call it a WP:CFORK but thats just me. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Too much time has been wasted on an LLM-written article supported by nonexistent sources and sources that fail WP:V and WP:RS. I also agree with Dolpina about the topic's notability. Kqol • talk 12:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Too much time has already been wasted on this AI slop that should never have entered the encyclopedia to begin with. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- and salt, since a new draft was already created. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete this article is poorly constructed and contains hallucinated citations. Nothing here convinces me that this topic cannot be covered in a different article. This should be prime G15 material, but that doesn't matter too much as it appears to be SNOWing. IsCat (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nuke it from Orbit and Salt. AI slop. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per G15 and WP:SNOW; and also delete Draft:Ichafu which is the exact same AI-generated text as this article, while admin-salting Ichafu (headdress) and Ichafu so that any potential recreation must go through AfC. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and salt Blow it up. I also WP:BLARed Draft:Ichafu, which, as The Bushranger pointed out, is the same AI-generated text as the mainspace article. When the mainspace article is deleted, the draft should be deleted by WP:G8. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per all above; I !vote merely to give the closing administrator more justification to find consensus to salt. Iseult Δx talk to me 21:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Bomb this article. Get this AI crap off the encyclopedia. ~ polski chomik (chat) 22:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete with TNT, and salt to require AfC. As an additional spot-check, [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44282-025-00158-9 Social media pressures on cultural authenticity in traditional Igbo wedding does briefly mention Ichafu (the word can be found twice in the source), but doesn't verify any of the claims, such as it being worn at funerals or women's assemblies, or it being featured in early 20th century footage collections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Chabad messianism affiliated publications (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 had first draftified this page, but the author invoked WP:DRAFTOBJECT and moved it back into mainspace without communication. The article has lots of WP:AIBOLD, CS1 errors in the references and external links in the body. It was created with some odd punctuation errors in the prose, so I am not convinced that this was wholesale generated by an AI. My guess is that AI was used to write this article WP:BACKWARDS, to find and add the references and maybe write/change some of the prose. Most of the sources are in Hebrew, which I don't speak, so I haven't done a source integrity analysis and can't speak much to the veracity of the sources. There is a lot of them, and the ones that I have spot checked do exist (no invalid URLs or 404 responses). --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- The article no longer has WP:AIBOLD, I'm fixing the the CS1 errors. Sources are verifiable, Hebrew language sources permitted under WP:Verifiability. Bewe0mor (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Nobody has claimed that they aren't permitted. What is not permissible, is to use an LLM to create articles or add new content to the articles, which is why this has ended up at AfD. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - This article has lots of sources, but I have not seen any that satisfy the "independent" or "significant" requirements found in WP:SIGCOV. All the sources I clicked on seemed to either be direct links to the publications themselves, simple list entries, or marketing copy. Also the AI-generated text is forbidden on wikipedia, so the article will need to be re-written from scratch anyway. My advice to User:Bewe0mor is to select the 5 or 6 best sources out of the 99 currently in the article, and show those to us. If those satisfy the requirements in WP:SIGCOV, then you could use them as the base for a new, human-written article. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 14:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- Alpagut (martial art) (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 suggest draftifying, this article isn't written according to Wikipedia standards Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 22:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Keep - The subject meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) as it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent media outlets. Alpagut is not just a local sport but an internationally recognized martial art with organized championships across several countries.
Furthermore, it qualifies under WP:NSPORT due to its international federation status and participation in multi-sport events. I will be adding more independent secondary sources (international news agencies and sports journals) to the article to address the concerns regarding "independent coverage." KülTegin.Alp (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Further comment - To address the concerns regarding independent coverage, I have identified several high-quality, third-party sources that demonstrate the international recognition and institutional standing of Alpagut:
Institutional Recognition: The International Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE), a global umbrella organization (partner of UNESCO and IOC), officially recognized and accepted the World Alpagut Federation as a member in May 2022 (Source: ICSSPE Official Website).
International Media Coverage: The state-run Qazafnom (Kazakhstan) reported on the strategic development of Alpagut in Central Asia and the establishment of the Asian Alpagut Federation (Source: Qazinform).
Major Multi-Sport Events: Alpagut has been part of the World Nomad Games (one of the largest traditional sports festivals globally), with coverage from international agencies like Xinhua and TRT World highlighting its role in the martial arts programs (Source: Xinhua News).
International Membership: The federation is also a member of TAFISA (The Association For International Sport for All), which is a key indicator of international sports legitimacy.
I will now proceed to integrate these citations into the main article to ensure it meets the required encyclopedic standards. KülTegin.Alp (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC) |
- I'm curious why you decided not to go through WP:AfC for this article. I was mainly suggesting draftifying your article before it gets moved to mainspace. I'm not arguing that Alpagut isn't notable. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 02:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- After looking at some of the links in your citations, a lot of them seem to be dead links, like this one, this one, and this one. It leads me to believe you might be using generative AI for your articles and citations. This specific article doesn't even bring up Alpagut. Awesomecat (✉ / ✎) 02:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- They are also using AI to generate the replies here. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
"Thank you for the feedback, Awesomecat. I apologize for the broken links; they may have been outdated or incorrectly formatted. I am not using generative AI to create fake citations, but I acknowledge that some sources need to be more precise and relevant to Alpagut's notability. I am open to moving the article to Draft space (WP:AfC) to improve the quality of references and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards before returning to mainspace. Could you help me with the draftification process?"
- KülTegin.Alp (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Keep – I would like to consolidate my position regarding the significance of Alpagut and address the comments made in the discussion.
First, to address the academic and historical foundations: We have now provided a comprehensive methodology paper that outlines the technical systems and the historical "Urmu Theory" of Alpagut. This document serves as a primary source to prove that the discipline is a structured martial art based on extensive research: Alpagut: The Methodology and Historical Foundations. Furthermore, the international legitimacy of Alpagut is confirmed by its verified memberships in global bodies such as TAFISA, ICSSPE, and the International Fair Play Committee.
Secondly, regarding the use of AI tools: As a non-native English speaker representing an international sports organization, I use AI-assisted tools to ensure my communication is clear and grammatically correct for a global audience. While these tools help bridge the language gap, the facts, academic references, and institutional memberships provided are entirely authentic and verifiable. Using a tool to refine language does not diminish the factual validity of the evidence presented.
I have updated the article to include these academic references and believe they sufficiently address the "notability" concerns. I kindly ask the community to evaluate the article based on these verifiable facts. KülTegin.Alp (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC) |
- Stop bludgeoning this discussion with AI-generated junk. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Update: I have added several formal academic and data verifications to establish the legitimacy and notability of Alpagut:
Zenodo (DOI): The methodology is now registered with DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19039783.
ORCID: Verified researcher profile linked: 0009-0001-4278-1250.
Wikidata: Formal authority control established via Q25546332 (Alpagut) and Q138685286 (Founder).
These links provide verifiable, independent, and scholarly data to support the "Keep" status of the article.KülTegin.Alp (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC) |
- Draftify per nom. I suspect the article is AI-generated, which is further backed by the responses of the creator here. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologize to the community. As a non-native speaker, I used AI to assist with grammar and phrasing, but I now realize it hallucinated some of the citations and provided broken links. This was a grave mistake on my part due to technical inexperience with how AI handles references. I had no intention of fabricating sources. I accept the deletion and will take time to learn Wikipedia's guidelines properly before any future contributions KülTegin.Alp (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEWLLM. The fake references in the initial revision would of made the article WP:G15able. Jumpytoo Talk 04:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEWLLM, as hastily as possible and with full prejudice. Fabricating references should warrant blocking. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEWLLM and sanctions should be considered if the author keeps using AI in communication and using the Shaggy defense. SecretSpectre (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I apologize for the confusion. As a new editor, I used digital tools to help translate and format my notes, which led to errors in the initial references. It was not a deliberate attempt to deceive (WP:HOAX), but a lack of experience with Wikipedia’s strict formatting and sourcing requirements.
- I have now officially disclosed my identity (Emil Rahimov) and my professional connection to the federation. I ask for a chance to clean up the article manually, removing any problematic content and focusing only on verifiable, independent international sources. I am not a bot; I am a professional trying to share information about my field, and I am learning the rules as I go. Thank you for your patience KülTegin.Alp (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please stop lying to us about this. You even used AI above. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 00:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Learning the rules is one thing, repeatedly using AI in communication after being explicitly told not to multiple times is another. SecretSpectre (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- National bank veto (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)
Per comments at Did you know nominations/National bank veto, article has had substantial WP:LLM problems since its first edit. User who created it has been blocked under complicated circumstances. I don't think it is practical or time-efficient to try to discern what is usable and factual from the material that currently exists here, and moreover there are already articles at Bank War and Second Bank of the United States where tightly-focused improvements could be provided instead. TheFeds 20:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEWLLM and WP:TNT. I found several hallucinations that don't match the provided sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEWLLM and nom Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, and Washington, D.C.. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Besides the LLM issues, why the heck was an article created for something already covered at Bank War#Veto? Utter lunacy. Reywas92Talk 03:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Noting that the author's article Clay–Randolph duel is also tagged for potential LLM use – it has some pretty absurd redundancy within it. — Reywas92Talk 03:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete instead of redirect so that the LLM-generated content doesn't live on in the page history. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sorry to say. I think this is a legitimate topic for a standalone article but...let the robots call and respond to each other on some other platform; we don't need to be doing this kind of article remediation jengod (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Aeronautics (magazine) (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)
There are many issues with this page, the most obvious of which is that it's entirely AI slop. The original form of the article was intended to promote an AI website called aeronauticsmagazine.com, but that has since been removed. The user contesting the PROD asserted that this is a WP:SIA, but I don't see how it meets any of the criteria to exist as one: it isn't navigationally useful as none of the entries are bluelinked, there's no evidence that the topic of "magazines called Aeronautics" is notable, and the third criterion ("Short, complete list") states Lists in which no entry is notable are rarely appropriate. Even if the topic is notable and encyclopedic, WP:TNT applies, as there are no inline citations, making it unreasonably difficult to determine where the AI has hallucinated. lp0 on fire () 09:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment There is still no indication that any of these magazines are notable, either individually or as a group. If nobody can find better sources, this fails WP:LISTN and WP:SIA#Common selection criteria. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sylheti Wikipedia (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)
PROD denied. User:Muydivertido's rationale for the PROD was: This article was created by a user who was later indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. The user was also using AI to edit Wikipedia articles as mentioned in the discussion. The user has also created this article and it displays clear and strong indications of AI-generation. UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. The article talks about preserving the Sylheti language, so keeping an AI-generated article about the Wikipedia for it is in very poor form and does it no favours. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this should be deleted and then recreated as a redirect to List of Wikipedias. There is no point in preserving this page history. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The article talks about preserving the Sylheti language is not a fair description of the page, which for the most part focuses on what it should, as other articles in Category:Wikipedias by language; Keep and add more sources (https://www.prothomalo.com/technology/y3eu9swvz3 for example) to the currently present ones and trim ; or redirect to List of Wikipedias (#301) per WP:ATD-R/WP:IGNORINGATD.--~2026-16195-13 (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
One of the project's notable contributors ... has been active in promoting the Sylheti language and its script ... he described the launch as "a significant milestone in the preservation and promotion of the Sylheti language and culture." The creation of the Sylheti Wikipedia has been described as an important development for the language's digital preservation. The Business Standard characterized it as "an effort to preserve the heritage of the 'Sylheti' language," noting that Sylheti speakers face concerns about their linguistic identity being erased. The Wikipedia edition serves not only as an encyclopedia but also as a platform for documenting and revitalizing the script. The launch has also drawn attention to the broader debate about Sylheti's status as a language rather than a dialect. ... the project provides a link to ancestral language and culture.
— Sylheti Wikipedia
- The article undeniably focuses on the status and preservation of the Sylheti language a lot. This is all pretty obviously written by an LLM, which in my opinion shows a lack of respect for the language and does it no favours, and also reflects badly on Wikipedia in and of itself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose redirection if it was LLM-generated. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Phrases such as
... has been described as an important development ... , ... noting that Sylheti speakers face concerns ... , ... serves not only as an ... but also as ... , ... drawn attention to the broader debate ... reads like WP:AILEGACY to me. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Even your quotes show that the Wikipedia page IS the main focus of the article but, independently, the article can be trimmed/pruned. ~2026-16195-13 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, I wasn't saying that the article does not focus on the Wikipedia. My point was that it also focues on the importance of preserving the Sylheti language, and using an AI to talk about the importance of preserving a language is an affront to that language. Apologies if I was not clear. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G15. PokémonPerson 16:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- G15 (LLM-generated pages without human review) does not apply, in my view@Geschichte. The text does not present signs of "Communication intended for the user" nor "Implausible, non-existent, or nonsensical references". I have scanned the sections Background and Significance and the AI detector found them totally "Human written".... ~2026-16195-13 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Kiewiet Lengana Pali
- Kiewiet Lengana Pali (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)
Name-checked as a coach for possibly notable artists, but no SIGCOV. Likely to fail WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom.
- The "Teaching philosophy" and "Notable students" sections have the classic ChatGPT "Bold and Bullet Point" paragraphs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi. You have clearly missed the part where in mentioned that he coached the likes of Masabane Cecilia Rangwanasha who is a South African soprano and is the winner of the BBC Cardiff Singer of the World . The list extend to Nkululeko Masuku finalist on Britain’s Got Talent 2024. These are two South Africans who were coached by Pali. I dispute this nomination for deletion as you want to overlook his work and influence over the two South African exports. KeMang?? (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Nueva Iberica (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)
There does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of nueva iberica as a music genre. Google Scholar has two hits for "nueva Iberica" + music, one is about chess and the other about sugarcane production. A regular google search gets hits on Wikiwand and the Wikipedia page List of electronic music genres where the term was added by User:Splendid entry who also created Nueva Iberica. I can't see other relevant hits. In addition the text appears to be AI-generated, has very few sources, and the third paragraph explicitly states that the term is not widely used (hence the article is WP:OR: Although the specific term "Nueva Iberica" is not widely used in the published literature, it is employed here descriptively to summarise musical practices that are independently documented in these and other journalistic sources. The article was previously nominated for speedy deletion and PROD but contested by author, see discussion on Talk:Nueva_Iberica. Lijil (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Not eligible for speedy deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- Keep may be rewritten and enreached with additional sources, but AI must be removed. And so the buck stops (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- What sources support the notability of this topic? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article also cites a 160-page work, but it is a thesis and therefore not reliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as an AI-generated article created in violation of WP:NEWLLM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
|
