Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Suspected AI-generated articles

Mohamed Zouaoui (footballer)

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

I propose redirecting to Espérance Sportive de Tunis#History because the article is flagged per user @Kowal2701: as LLM content with some copyrights issues. I don't have a firm opinion, but it warrants investigation. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Tunisia. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I tagged it as a presumptive LLMPROD, so it’s plausible that this particular article is a faithful translation (inline with WP:LLMTRANSLATE). WP:V failures (hallucinations) are the biggest concern. Tbh I’d defer to Beanie saying it’s okay) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Revi Sterling

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

Non-notable WP:RUNOFTHEMILL person, no independent coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ighs (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United States of America, and Women. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete No GNG and AI... has to go. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete a whole three hits in Gnews, all PR items. Not sure what an advocate does, the article isn't terribly clear. Just not enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles, Colorado, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Reluctant delete It is an unfortunate consequence of how the WP notability requirements are structured that she does not pass. Many advocates for women and girls do not get enough WP:42 about themselves, the coverage goes to the organizations or principles that they advocate for. Her GS cites are much too low for a pass of WP:NPROF, and I do not see enough under either the name used here or how she publishes (Sarah Revi Sterling) for WP:GNG or anything else.Ldm1954 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think the awards are enough for notability (through WP:GNG or WP:PROF#C2) and they're the only thing that looks like a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Insect neuropeptide

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

AI-generated article created for a university course project. Much of what is said in this article applies to neuropeptides in general, making the article redundant. It's also long and overly-detailed, loaded with AI tells like bulleted lists, vague statements of importance, the requisite "future directions" section at the end, you name it. I'm not about to go through all the references to see if they support the citations. Someone made this article in ten seconds so that's all the attention it deserves. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related AfD discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I will improve the article. But how could you say it's 100% AI-generated? while using AI was permitted throughout the course. It also specifically talks about insect neuropeptides, which could be related to some portions of neuropeptides. I will rework those portions. But I appreciate your comments, and I will try my level best to improve the article. Thanks Naim2025 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

LLM text is not permitted on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:NOLLM) and has to be removed when found. We could move the article to a draft for you to work on, but in my experience as someone who has done it multiple times, fixing an LLM article completely is very hard work, it takes me longer than writing a new article, and I don't recommend it. I will reluctantly !vote Draftify so the author can work on it, but it must not be republished until the LLM text is gone and every reference has been checked.

Please contact the course instructor and make them aware of our policy. If you were encouraged to use LLM without being told that it is forbidden, that's unfair to you and the other students. M kuhner (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

DeviantArt: The Movie

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

COI draftification by User:Quinntropy contested by author.

Completely unsourced, WP:AIMARKDOWN, WP:AILEGACY. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Suspected AI-generated articles. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete, obvious hoax subject. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete in some form; there's no way this is going to meet any standard we have, AI-generated content or otherwise (it would not surprise me if this falls under at least one spepedy criterion). Note that the creator actually redraftified this right after this went to AfD–and once that happens to an already repeatedly-draftified-and-contested article (to say nothing of moving AfD'd articles anywhere during a nomination being frowned upon at best), that is simply out-of-process. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. A search for sources yields a bunch of DeviantArt pages (unsurprisingly), Fandom wikis, and other user-generated content - nothing even remotely resembling a valid source. I don't think this is a hoax per se; it's just a fan project which is unlikely to ever be notable, even if released. Omphalographer (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The article's creator has moved this to the draftspace in an attempt to avoid this getting deleted at AfD. Sometimes this is OK, if the draft does have promise to become notable one day but this just really doesn't. I have to agree with Omphalographer in that this is likely just a fan project and not a blatant hoax exactly. I think it's just a pipe dream by a couple of kids who are hoping that putting it out on Wikipedia and other visible areas will help it gain traction. That said, there are some parts that are outright hoax material, like Fathom Events holding the distribution rights. I doubt very seriously that this is the case. More likely they're trying to reach out to Fathom Events and have them show it for one of those "one night only" deals, however the catch with those is that it's a pay to play scenario. You supply the money up front to rent out a certain number of theaters and you ideally get repaid (and then some) by people buying tickets. I just don't see the point in cultivating a draft. If this does get closed on a technicality, I encourage nominating the draft for MfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - I see this has already been draftified but I would still like to get my two cents in. I agree with ROTP; this seems like something a few children made up one day, which is about as clear of a WP:HOAX as you can get. Not sure if this AfD is still a good idea or not now that this is a draft; assuming it stays in draftspace, it may just get ignored by the author and if so, it will be auto-deleted in six months (I'm pretty sure that's how long it is before abandoned drafts get deleted, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Call (politician)

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

Coverage of this politician/lawyer seems trivial. Does not meet WP:NPOL, WP:NPERSON. Ighs (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Colorado. Ighs (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ighs It actually explicitly meets both of those. Can you explain where you're drawing the notion from that it doesn't? It also satisifies secondary source requirements and breadth of coverage. The only backing you've provided for your claim is that it seems trivial, which isn't really an argument at all.

Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
I will say (as someone who decidedly isn't one) that I think this is part of the reason why conservatives believe this site is biased against them. They have just as much history behind their movement as liberals and leftists do, and it's equally important that we explore it.

CSGinger14 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
On WP:NPOL, Call has never held office, or been a member of a legislative body at that level. Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected, re-elected, election ongoing), but you could make the case for embezzlement articles meeting notability. In general (excluding that), coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject. Ighs (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
It seems like half the time Wikipedia editors expect every article subject to be an A-list celebrity; people necessarily exist in their context. He was the statewide chair of one of only two major parties in the United States. NPOL doesn't actually explicitly say "government" office, it just says statewide office. Nonetheless, one line down from the one you referenced would indicate that he's a [major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage. Were you hoping for an expose on the layout of his garden? You only need 2 sources to establish notability. Even without mak[ing] the case for embezzlement meeting notability, that's still been well and over satisfied.

CSGinger14 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected ,re-elected, election ongoing) − Challenged by R Street, CBA-CLE, US News

coverage is...not independent of the subject - You misunderstand what that actually means, per WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Four of 15 sources are/were affiliated with Call in some manner or another. None of them, though, were used to establish notability.

Call does, however, satisfy the earlier rule on "significant coverage" − that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

CSGinger14 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No comment offered on the accuracy of this delsort, but the article was tagged by Ighs as such in Diff/1363786942, so clearly someone suspects this to be the case. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Coverage seems substantial, as far as I can see, meeting WP:NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Additionally, the embezzlement and other issues appear to support further. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Delete - This article is a resume of a failed political candidate and embezzler. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates), there is little biographical detail and little he accomplished aside from a failed campaign and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career. I wouldn't want to set a precedent by keeping this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

My impetus, my muse! I've missed our chats. @Magnolia677 what's your estimate of how many state or national committees you'd have to chair before you're no longer considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL?

LYL,

CSGinger14 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep On balance, I think the subject clears GNG. There are stories about his election as Colorado Republican chair and his disbarrment. I am not sure (politician) is the right title, however. --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd initially had it as 'party chair', but it was moved soon after.

CSGinger14 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, Individual who is the subject of the article in question received significant coverage relating to disbarment in 2021 stemming from embezzlement. (AP, CBS, etc.) Individiaul also got some not significant coverage relating to an alleged illegal vote in 2011. In 2013, Individual got significant coverage from KUNC about their election to state party leadership. Also there is significant coverage from other sources online, such as this one.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey would you mind posting those sources in a Refideas box

({Refideas|[Url here (space in between) any name you wanna give it, at least a character here]})

over on talk? Would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Devil Dog USA

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

Fails WP:NORG; not seeing any sources that meet the WP:SIRS criteria, especially not any non-local sources. Mainly sourced to routine coverage that is mostly just interviews with the founder. I can't access the national Fox News story but that also appears to be an interview. Also likely AI-generated (this is separate from the notability issue); see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Duran for context. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Suspected AI-generated articles, and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete because the subject is inseparable from Gonzalo Duran, who was not notable either. The news stories available have two concerning tendencies: one tendency is to be interviews with Duran and the other tendency is to never come from outside of New York City. Something that pertains only to New York City could be notable, but something which attracts little or no interest from outside the City probably cannot be. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per @EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth. Khalitate (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment The article creator has been blocked as a sock. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Rodney Chapman

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

This is an AI-generated page, that was first draftified to Draft:Rodney Chapman but then copypaste moved back into article space 40 minutes later.

The user has since also created Rod Chapman, a third and also AI-generated page about the same person.

All of these pages are generated, the most obvious sign being WP:AIREDCAT in all of them. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United Kingdom. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Rod Chapman has since been speedy deleted as G15. This article was itself previously tagged for both G15 and A7, but both were (separately and unrelatedly) declined (no reason was given for the G15 decline, but the A7 decline was because a credible claim of significance exists; for what it's worth, the current nomination appears to be solely about the LLM issues and does not comment on notability or significance at all). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Yep, I am not making any comments about the notability (or lack thereof) of the subject, only that the article itself is LLM generated and fails the NOLLM guideline. The Rod Chapman generation was clearly copied from a chatbot: AbuseLog/44628736. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as clear WP:NOLLM violation. Surprised that speedy delete was declined by User:Ca (with no explination) as this is very clearly an AI generate page but a repeat offender. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
The offered rationale Obviously LLM use and multiple WP:LLMSIGNS does not fall under either of the two narrow G15 subcriteria. The criterion explicitly notes: While these indicators can be used in conjunction, they should not serve as the sole basis for applying this criterion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
The Rod Chapman generation did however, that's why it's a redlink now. This one cannot even be dratified because it is a copy paste move after being draftified the first time, making it a contested move of sorts. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Generative AI pornography

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

This article appears to be LLM-generated, and I can't seem to find any entirely-manmade revisions. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Artificial intelligence. GrinningIodize (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't look AI generated to me, please provide more evidence. I'll check the sources for the text accuracy later, and if it's accurate, I'll vote keep. For now, I'm neutral. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 20:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The article uses the rule-of-threes several times (WP:RO3 in bold):

"These algorithms... generate lifelike images, videos, or animations"
"Users can customize bodies, clothing, and sociodemographic traits"
"The use of generative AI in the adult industry began in the late 2010s, initially focusing on AI-generated art, music, and visual content."
"These platforms enable users to create or view AI-generated adult content appealing to different preferences through prompts and tags, customizing body type, facial features, and art styles"
"victims of deepfake [sic] include Scarlett Johansson, Taylor Swift, and Maisie Williams"

Other odd phrasings (suspicious portions in bold):

"The case aligns with California's recent legislation—SB 926, SB 942, and SB 981—championed by Senators Aisha Wahab and Josh Becker"
"catering to audiences seeking customizable experiences"
"These bills aim to protect individuals from AI-generated explicit images by criminalizing non-consensual distribution... empowering victims to report and remove harmful content from platforms"
"AI porn sites, therefore, attract those seeking unique or niche experiences, sparking debates on creativity and the ethical boundaries of AI in adult media."

GrinningIodize (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you refered to an section from me "Users can customize bodies, clothing, and sociodemographic traits", thats on page 9, starting at the section The Current State of AI Porn, notably at "users at customize". I added the page information to the source. The Other Karma (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Elon Musk, so I can't afford to get the necessary subscription to access the cited article, but the description is itself full of signs of LLM-generated content (suspicious portions in bold):

"—or AI porn—"
"Following systematic open coding, categorization, and inter-rater validation"
"foundational (resolution, theme, point-of-view; 22.2–69.4%) and contextual aspects (e.g., weather, setting, lighting; 11.1–63.9%)."
"Carrying significant social and ethical implications, these findings point to a gradual evolution toward an AI-driven porn landscape"

AI slop is AI slop, regardless of where you found it. GrinningIodize (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, even if you did get that phrase from somewhere else, wouldn't that be a close paraphrasing? GrinningIodize (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Unless stronger evidence of AI writing is presented. I'm not seeing any smoking guns. The diffs show gradual writing and addition of sources, without markdown, hallucinated refs, or other AI shibboleths. Rule of three and fronted adverbial phrases weren't invented by AI. Fences&Windows 11:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Why do you think that a human, working on a Wikipedia article (not a promotional piece), would use the rule-of-threes so extensively? Furthermore, I find that most of the suspected LLM-generated text was added by a single editor, Hypeabase, who made lots of incremental but still reasonably-large edits in late 2024. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This is a classic case of WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. I do get the point about "close paraphrasing" and dry, algorithmic phrasing but without evidence of LLM, it's a case rewriting sentences on the talk page. The topic is receiving extensive global coverage across legal, ethical, and technical secondary sources and it feels like a high-traffic encyclopedic topic which should be deleted because of a few sentences using the rule-of-three. Needs cleaning and rewriting but strongly in favour of keep MissBVCC (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

To quote WP:AISIGNS: "Please do not merely treat these signs as the problems to be fixed; that could just make detection harder."; therefore, we should not rewrite sentences in the article to make them sound manmade. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I provided evidence of LLM usage in my comments above. GrinningIodize (articles without a Wikidata item) (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Buganda culture

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

LLM Generated. WP:NOLLM applies, as does WP:DRAFTOBJECT since this is a disputed draftification 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Text is pretty clear LLM (see edit summary by the editor who flagged it). M kuhner (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic failinng WP:NOT. Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Uganda and Suspected AI-generated articles. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per NOLLM. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing NOLLM. same rationale as when I tagged and draftified the page (markdown, AIREDCAT, AIBOLD, AILIST, created with nonexistent Template:Infobox social group infobox template). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary duplication of Clans of Baganda and also Buganda#Culture and society and Baganda#Culture and society. Fences&Windows 11:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:NOLLM and WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Dr Abdul Samad

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

Does not meet notability requirements WP:GNG. Does not have 2 pieces of sig cov in reliable sources. Article moved to mainspace unilaterally after two declines. Also prose shows evidence of AI use. Mme Maigret (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Add WP:UPE to that. Moved it here after I called them out on the original (like I wouldn't find it via the redirect??) Nuke it.
FWIW potentially qualifies for speedy under G11 and G15, but I'll let more experienced editors decide whether to upgrade, and/or start any disciplinary proceedings. Meanwhile I'll pop back over and nominate the redirect too. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Oh, it goes even further - my COI comment is still on the talk page in draft space, but they managed to move the content and redirect the draft article to mainspace while eliminating the edit history via some hijinks apparently involving their sandbox? Two redirects to nom. SMH. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Added here and here ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi,
Working to improve my article and added independent and reliable sources as mentioned earlier today. Also revised the prose to ensure it complies with Wikipedia Manual of Style. I request u to evaluate my article after improvements made today. Syedhashimpak (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Can you please confirm that you are the official copyright holder for the image you've added to the article? You've made that declaration when you first uploaded it, but I'd like you to please confirm the legal status of the image.
Your participation at the administrator noticeboard would also be greatly appreciated. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Academics and educators, Pakistan, and Suspected AI-generated articles. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPEOPLE & WP:GNG, as others have mentioned. I also agree that AI is likely being used & have concerns about COI/UPE - but that doesn't change the lack of notability and WP:SIGCOV. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:NOLLM, WP:NBIO and GNG. Blue Sonnet has basically said everything I wanted to say. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Creator indeffed, by the by. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, thought I noted that here but never hit save apparently. Indeffed for DE which encompasses all of the issues raised here and at ANI Star Mississippi 14:24, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per GNG, NBIO, SIGCOV, UPE, COI, NOLLM and few more policies that I'm probably forgetting. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Adam Bly

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

I propose draftifying because article is not ready for mainspace. Delete may also be the better option, I doubt the subject meets WP:NPERSON. Ighs (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Suspected AI-generated articles, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as being a CV currently. I don't see any potential in this iteration of the article, so oppose draftification. Geschichte (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Geschichte (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete I see nothing here for a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, I don't know why this ended up under STEM. I see no rationale for draftification. If the original editor wants to write a proper article and submit it via AfC they can. For now TNT. (N.B., I deleted an AI tag as no evidence was provided, and I saw nothing.)Ldm1954 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP: passes WP:GNG, lots of WP:SIGCOV in French:
1. The New York Times, by Stuart Elliott, 20 Jan 2006, "Science Blogs as a Vehicle for Upscale Ads"
2. Le Devoir, by Helen Branswell, 19 May 1998, "Un biochimiste avant l’heure Adam Bly, un Montréalais de 17 ans remporte les honneurs à la Foire internationale d ’ingénierie au Texas" , p.3
3. La Presse, by Catherine Solyom (The Montreal Gazette), 31 dec 2001, "La science pour les branchés" , p.6
4. Le Devoir, by Antoine Robitaille, 24 dec 1999, "Relève scientifique Une deuxième Expo sciences Québec/Rhône-Alpes" p.7
5. La Presse, by Eve Dumas, 4 dec 2001, "De la tete aux pieds Adam Bly" p.1.
Friendly reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup --TitCrisse (t•c) 13:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC).
Source 1 is not in depth; source two mentions him as winning a high school prize; source 3 is about a magazine he published as a student and is part interview. None of these pass NPROF and I am very dubious about WP:42. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Banana Ball Championship League season

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

Nothing notable here. Note that article was draftified and creator immediately pushed it back through saying that It’s super fucking notable. and that other users should Stop being a dickbag. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What if we heavily and radically edit it or make it a draft article? Christianhatley527 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 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 — Standalone season articles are a normal article type for sports leagues and competitions, including professional, minor-league, indoor, and other non-major leagues. This article follows that standard season-page structure: infobox, background, teams, format, schedule, standings, championship, broadcasting, and references.
The subject is not merely a promotional page for the Savannah Bananas. It is the inaugural season of the Banana Ball Championship League, with a six-team league structure, standings, a qualifying tournament, playoffs, and a championship weekend. The season and league structure have been covered by independent sources, including ESPN, Baseball America, MiLB, Sports Illustrated, and Nexstar/CW. Those sources support the existence, structure, schedule, expansion teams, tournament format, and broadcast coverage.
The article may need cleanup, including citation formatting, but cleanup issues are not deletion grounds. If editors believe the article should be merged then editor should merge all seasons on MLB, NFL, NHL, MLS, etc... into one single page.

(Bes2224 (talk)) Bes2224 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This has me concerned. The reply above states no Wikipedia policies or guidelines. – The Grid (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G15 per multiple edits showing use of LLMs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Georgia (U.S. state). Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete under G15, there are 3x OAICITES in Diff/1363328863 which should remove any doubt anyone may have had. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
I removed the nollm tag from the article, but with no prejudice toward an uninvolved admin closing this discussion as speedy if need be. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
You mean the {{db-llm}} tag? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
@Beta Beta Beta, fyi but I had already tagged it for G15 earlier because of the OAICITES but its been declined to let the AfD run through. Consensus-based deletion isn't the worst idea anyway. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Right, thanks for notifying. Beta Beta Beta - talk 21:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
There are two copies of this in draft space:
- Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): draftified by JTtheOG
- Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): copypaste move back into article space, before being draftified by Zackmann08
‑‑gurkubondinn 16:14, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy delete Strongly support under G15, too much use of LLM, What is :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}? GIGO all Bogus. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}is proof that even after review and edit, I still make mistakes on clean-up and formatting. Hit wrong buttons when copy/paste, or delete. If you have an issue with the article, then rewrite the information. The league is clearly notable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0NMMJViCpM(Bes2224 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC))
Then could you please explain Special:Diff/1363328863 where the same error happens thrice? I fail to see how these slipped past you other than you simply copy-and-pasting your chatbot's output with minimal review. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 21:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thilio: assuming you aren't aware, that is an WP:OAICITE from ChatGPT. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
@Gurkubondinn: I'm aware, it's a testing question to see how they would reply before show them WP:OAICITE . They said I did not just copy and paste unreviewed AI text onto Wikipedia. They also said Hit wrong buttons when copy/paste, or delete., blatant distortion. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I guessed. I avoided mentioning OAICITE earlier myself for the same reason, but I figured that this is fairly obvious by now to anyone following along at home. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

it's not blatent diotorian. you dont want me to use tools redilily avaliable to me to help craft my message the way i want to say it, so it comes out sounding a certain way that does not translate well to people i don't know and can't hear me speak. your opinion is not fact. (Bes2224 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC))
Keep - The speedy deletion request was originally based on the idea that the subject was "nothing notable," but 21 sources have now been provided. If people think the article should be merged, that is a normal editing discussion, not a speedy deletion issue. The article is not promotional, which was already addressed before. Now the concern seems to be AI use, but I do not see a G15 violation here. G15 is about unreviewed AI-generated content. That is not what happened. Everything was reviewed, edited, reformatted, and checked before it was posted. I have always drafted articles outside of Wikipedia before posting them. I started doing that years ago because I learned quickly that making too many live edits annoyed people. I also do not work well using Wikipedia sandboxes because I lose track of things, and then drafts sit there unfinished for years. So I draft outside of Wikipedia, clean it up, and then post it when I think it is ready.
That is what happened here. I used the structure of a season article as a formatting guide, worked on it outside of Wikipedia, and then edited it before posting. I used ChatGPT to help change the information over to the BBCL article and later to help with spelling and article organization. I did not just copy and paste unreviewed AI text onto Wikipedia. The edits made after posting do not mean the article was unreviewed. That is just normal Wikipedia editing. I always preview pages before posting any edits, so I even made further edits in the preview screen before posting. Nothing is perfect the moment it goes up, and cleanup after posting is part of the process. Bes2224 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Update: I copied and pasted the article into my sandbox so I could continue working on it. Since then, I have made edits myself, with no assistance whatsoever, and the AI detector I am using is now giving the text an even higher score. Can anyone tell me what specific tool is being used to evaluate AI detection? If this is being treated as evidence against me, I would like to know exactly what I am being measured against and bring the score down to the level the community desires. Also, prior to adding this sentence my AI score on this message was 32.7%. Finally, prior to adding this sentence my AI score on this message was 32.7%, with zero assistance, other than spellcheck in Chrome. (Bes2224 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC))
Two of the sources in your sandbox version have ChatGPT tags on them btw. The best way to get a lower AI score would be stop using AI. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
~~There is also ChatGPT output like Diff/1363375000 showing up~~, yet they insist that this is not generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 20:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Apologies, that text was copied from the Banana Ball article (which seems to have source integrity issues). ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I have updated the actual material on the website. Accounting for removing the code for the sources, it's a 12.1% score Bes2224 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Citations 17 and 18 have UTM parameters attached by ChatGPT at the end of the URLs. JTtheOG (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Not to mention that LLM-classifier results are irrelevant. Also why would you need to run text that you supposedly wrote your self through a classifier? Like shouldn't you know if you wrote it or not? Who else would be supposed to know it? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
If LLM-classifier results are irrelevant, then any question of G15 if irrelevant. How else do people flag articles for AI. They just go around flagging articles with no base to their claim?

The issue is clearly not an AI written article. The issue is citations flag AI models. The issue with my article had nothing to do with the content, and everything to do with you can only cite things in certain ways.

How else would you like me to write the article. You want me to rewrite it like a text message?

I think you're just being a bully and "you are asking to be taken to WP:ANI with that kind of attitude."

(Bes2224 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC))
I think you're just being a bully and "you are asking to be taken to WP:ANI with that kind of attitude."
— User:Bes2224

Whom is this directed at? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Though the sources were valid sources from Baseball America and Minor League Baseball, I have removed them.

Thank you for your help with this. I sincerely appreciate it. (Bes2224 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC))
Of course they're good sources. Nobody asked you to remove them. We just wanted honesty about your AI use. JTtheOG (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
I have been honest. Everyone is refusing to acknowledge my statements.

If you look at my sources, other than the 2, none of them has ChatGPT tags.

When first creating the article it was removed due to sources, instead of being questioned for noteworthiness. So I pulled a bunch of sources off google first. Then I asked chatgpt to give me more sources. I pulled 2 sources from there and included the links as given to me. I made no efforts to hide anything.

The only other AI issue was one reference code I copied over when formatting instead of it being the actual reference citation.

I haven't lied about anything. I have been honest. People have been taking half statements, or misunderstanding of what I'm writing, and using my own free admission of using help against me.

I have reworked all information in the articles. There's only so much you can change about stats and dates. If you run the 2026 MLB page through AI checker, it comes out to 76% AI.

I have worked this article down to under 30% while leaving all citations in the code. Removing the citations from the code, it goes down to 7.7%

(Bes2224 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

Update from the article creator:

I worked on the article today to fix the issues you all pointed out. Though the original speedy deletion topic was nothing notable, it then changed. The main problem became citations related to AI tools. I get why that was a concern, with our rules about proper sourcing and citations. I want to make it clear: I did not use ChatGPT as a source for the article. I asked ChatGPT to help me find ADDITIONAL sources, that I read and used those sources directly. The problem was that some leftover citation code remained in the article. There were two citations with ChatGPT-related URL residue. I removed those citations even though the sources were from Baseball America and MiLB. I also kept cleaning up the article and reviewing the sources. And it should read significantly different than before since this speedy deflection is based on and older edit. I understand why the residue raised concerns and I take responsibility for not catching it before posting. I want to point out that leaving that residue in the article was not intentional. If I was trying to hide AI involvement I would not have left ChatGPT-related citation residue in the article, while openly admitting to using chatgpt to help me within the stated guidelines. It was a cleanup mistake. I spent nine hours today revising concerns people addressed. But It has been frustrating because I had to keep explaining my process and defending my intent, instead of addressing fixing the article. This is why direct questions matter. I am sorry for the cleanup issues. I will keep fixing any remaining problems people have. I don't think the article should be deleted under G15. The AI-related citation residue has been taken care of. Any remaining issues can be handled through editing. I am trying to improve the article. I want the discussion to stay focused on problems with the article rather than assumptions, about what I intended. (Bes2224 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC))

Comment/Note: Currently there are four copies/versions of this article on Wikipedia:
- Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season (created 18:36, 8 July 2026)
- Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season 2 (created 02:02, 9 July 2026)
- 2026 Banana Ball Championship League season (created 07:37, 9 July 2026, with a hostile edit summary , presumably aimed at Zackmann08, who had draftified Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season 2)
- User:Bes2224/sandbox (created 17:34, 9 July 2026; deleted 03:11, 10 July 2026, after seeing this comment/report)

--Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC); updated 07:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning Delete, based on the article creator's hostile attempts to jam the article through by most any means (see my Comment/Note above). I would perhaps also recommend salting if the issue keeps escalating. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as per above, though I would lean against SALTing based on potential notability of the subject, especially once the season is actually completed. There's no reason the article creator (or anyone else) could not continue improving the previous draft. JTtheOG (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have agreed Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season, and Draft:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season 2 should be removed for clean up. I have not worked on those articles since they were originally created.
I don't think my sandbox is an issue as that is where it is suggested to work on articles, unless that's not how sandbox works, but that's where multiple people and Wikipedia Article Wizard suggest to work on stuff. I can delete my sandbox article if you want. But in the earlier days of wikipedia before sandbox was created, microediting was frowned upon, so I thought that was why sandbox was made?
I have reworked the actual live article enough so that the AI score is down to 7.7% when removing the citations (as in removing the characters from the script).
I don't believe using my sandbox is "hostile attempts to jam the article through" as I was using sandbox for what I believe it's intended pursue is. I have addressed the behavior addressed in that other section of this website, have not worked on the 2 drafted articles and have agreed they should be removed.
It is of my opinion on my work since the original drafting issue, I have worked tirelessly all day to address all concerns. And deleting a sports season article due to behavior, as opposed to substance, is not within the spirit of Wikipedia (Bes2224 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

I'm not sure what SALTing is, but it would be unprecedented to stop edits from an ongoing season to stop happening. See 2026 CFL season, 2026 WNBA season, 2026 Major League Baseball season, 2026 FIFA World Cup, as they are also other active competitions not yet completed (Bes2224 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

I left a notice on Wikipedia Baseball and Wikipedia Sports talk pages requesting input from editors familiar with sports season articles. (Bes2224 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

Though I am believe I was using my sandbox in the correct fashion, I have cleared that out. (Bes2224 (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

I have tagged both of the draft pages with db-g7. I believe this is the correct way for me to indicate on those pages to delete them. (Bes2224 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

I have submitted the article to Wikipedia:Content assessment because substantial changes have been made I welcome specific cleanup. I will continue working to address any remaining issues. (Bes2224 (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC))

Why not let this article get deleted and just work on improving the existing draft, which doesn't include insults in the edit summary? We don't need four versions of the same article. Besides, that's exactly what draftspace is for. It's not at all a punishment. It's a space to gradually work on articles, and there's no problem with "microediting". JTtheOG (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have worked on improving the article. I have stated multiple time I worked on the live article. I have made zero updates to the drafts as to work on the article in one space. Everyone keeps giving different opinions on how to address what and where to do things.

everyone is focused on the procedure, not the improvement that have been made.

again the article has been heavily updated, since the issue started.

(——) Bes2224 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, my sandbox has been cleared out. The 2 draft articles I asked multiple times to be removed, and have tagged them for removal myself. The 2 drafts are no anywhere close to the current structure of the live article. Please compare them dude by side and you will see how different the articles are.

so again- 2 draft articles should be removed. My sandbox has been cleared out, though I don’t understand why working on something in my sandbox is an issue. There is only 1 active article.

if there is an issue with the comment history- then move the article. I won’t move the article because I don’t want to be accused of doing something else wrong in an attempt to improve the article. Bes2224 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this will be deleted. I would suggest you take 5 seconds to copy-paste the most updated text into the draft to save your work. JTtheOG (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, salting isn't required. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Article creator is engaged in apparent WP:CANVASSING, which looks to me to be non-neutral: , , . More apparent attempts to get their way by any means possible. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
I’m asking for input to help improve the article. I’ve made substantial edits to everything. The article is being judged on procedure and not on substance. Bes2224 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks fairly neutral to me, but your 2nd and 3rd diffs appear to be the same. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks neutral to me. Jishara (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: If any one of the four versions of this article are kept, it should only be kept in draft form, and all other versions/iterations/drafts should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
The one “version” was my sandbox. An area meant for working on articles that aren’t part of the live project of Wikipedia. My sandbox has been cleared out.

i have agreed that 2 of the previous versions should be deleted. The current live page is the most updated version on the article. Do you want me to copy paste it into one of the drafts? Or leave the draft spaces as-is because they should be removed? Bes2224 (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Copy-paste into the draft would probably be best. JTtheOG (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The article creator has repeatedly admitted to using an LLM in the creation of this article in ways that according to Gurkubondinn violate WP:NOLLM, while asserting that those uses did not violate WP:NOLLM: Talk:2026 Banana Ball Championship League season#Contested deletion, and User talk:Bes2224#July 2026. This level of LLM use, combined with the clearly LLM-generated comment they posted at the very top of this AFD, cause me grave concern. (BTW, I see a lot of WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and possible WP:CIR and inability to work collaboratively. I'm not sure how the editor managed on Wikipedia prior to these recent behaviors and conflicts, but these behaviors are not compatible with long-term Wikipedia editing, in my opinion.) Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion of me, but your opinion of me is irrelevant to the article.

once again, the article has been updated substantially from original to address concerns about LLM Bes2224 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Your refusal to acknowledge your violations of wiki policy concerning LLMs, and your WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and possible WP:CIR, are very relevant to this AFD, to this article going forward, and to your own Wikipedia editing in general going forward. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Again, I have addressed the concerns about the article. I have reworked the article. It is substantially different from the original version.

please tell me what else in the article you would like me to work on so I can address any concerns you have about the article. Bes2224 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete based on the LLM concerns listed above, with no prejudice against any future article created in good faith without LLM assistance. I believe this topic has (or will have) standalone notability. Frank Anchor 12:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete based on LLM issues. This could be a case of WP:TNT, but given that the vast majority of the text was written by the (now banned) Bes2224, there's not really anything that would exist after a TNT. Much like Frank Anchor, I have absolutely no prejudice against creating an article like this in the future if the 2026 season in particular receives enough coverage to justify a WP:CFORK. Yojo98 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT. I'm not sure the subject is notable (sources are suspect), but it might be. In solidarity, Miniapolis 22:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. While I think an article could likely be written on this subject, blowing it up with WP:TNT would make a good article more likely to come into existence, since an interested editor won't be handcuffed by trying to clean out a wall of AI slop. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: in accordance with G15 if necessary. Wikipedia isn't Grokipedia. We as humans write out the articles with our own brains, not with an LLM. haruka amaranth 05:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Soothe Note

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

WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Draftified by Gurkubondinn as AI generated, then moved back to mainspace by its creator. Probable NOLLM vio, dubious notability. Athanelar (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 05:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete for the same reason that i draftified. ‑‑gurkubondinn 05:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:NCORP. The sources are interviews or profiles of the founder, not the type of intellectually independent information about a product needed for an article. Note Teddy Aaron created by the same user. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
They've been CU-blocked, perhaps consider a G5 speedy? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - LLM or not, not notable. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: fails NCORP (sources don’t go beyond CORPTRIV) & fails NOLLM Netstars22 (talk to me!) 00:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per NOLLM & fails GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Merria Dearman

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

WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Was draftified by Gurkubondinn as a NOLLM violation, then moved back to mainspace by its creator (with an AI generated edit summary). Probable NOLLM violation, dubious notability. Athanelar (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and United States of America. Athanelar (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 05:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete for the same reason that i draftified. ‑‑gurkubondinn 05:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete I agree that article is LLM and has not been corrected. M kuhner (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per NOLLM Accesscrawl (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Return on ad spend

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

Potentially LLM generated article created by seemingly single-purposed account. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Business-related AfD discussions. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 12:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete, I agree about the LLM generated side of things. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 12:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I get this a lot even in my own work,

I work in advertising and have been claimed to be AI in my own emails to people, I'm autistic, not AI.

The structure and content for the article is correct and so are the reference links. Gordongeraghty (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
In this edit to Talk:Meta Platforms you said I would appreciate any feedback or consensus before I move this from my sandbox to the live article. Your sandbox doesn't exist yet. Did you type it out by yourself? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
I write in docs or notes and then copy directly to Wiki.

For your best practice should i do it all in sandbox? Gordongeraghty (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
No, you referenced your own sandbox, hinting that you've used it and there's something there to paste things from. There isn't any. Why did you say that? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 12:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It also shows this diff to be 70% AI generated. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 12:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero, while not perfect, shows this as 74.6% AI generated... and that's only counting the text. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 12:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Content is copied from multiple sources and paraphrased during edits.

Not to try go against the system, rather do you know how to make it "not be AI" if the content is coming from genuine sources?

AI will reference genuine sources Gordongeraghty (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
AI hallucinates sources, because of the way it works. AI only turns your input into numbers (vectors) representing ideas and then uses maths to calculate or guess what the most likely response numbers would be. As such it may often cite things that are only likely to exist, such as assuming a wikipedia page exists at a place.

It turns out (after testing with a couple of articles) that my AI detector is not particularly good (it was detecting anything with markdown as AI) but the text does still show AI-like patterns. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 13:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft This concept exits [], but better sources are needed. AI is always a concern, but I'd let this be drafted so it can be improved. I pulled up a dozen sources in Gscholar and Books, this would be easy enough to fix. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Negombo prison riot

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

While the topic itself appears notable, the article seems to be heavily written using AI. First drafted by a user with <50 edits at User:See U in world/sandbox: the first version of the page included no citations at all and displayed several other signs of AI writing including groups of three, etc.. More concerningly is that most of the prose written in this first version still makes up the majority of the current article's prose. Requesting draftifying the article until a through clean-up can be carried out. Johnson524 06:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Sri Lanka. Johnson524 06:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Issue resolved. The article has been thoroughly cleaned up, AI-like prose has been removed, sourcing has been improved, and the content has been rewritten in an encyclopedic style. See U in world (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The issue here is not notability but provenance, start over with a draft. WP:TNT applies Accesscrawl (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:NOLLM, the user seems to admit to as much in recent edit summaries. The page history of the article and sandbox both show rapid and large edits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per See U in World, issue seems to be resolved and cleaned up, so draftification likely would do nothing to change article quality or information. R. M. Holda - (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, its been fixed. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment If the initial text was from an LLM, much of the article is still from an LLM. The groups of three have been removed but the remaining text hasn't. Take the first paragraph in background for example - it's had the first line removed due to including a group of three but the rest remains the same.

The original article creator was the one to both add that paragraph and remove the first line with the note "seems like LLM Generated". I'd assume they would know. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep The article reads well and links to an ample number of sources. Any lingering quality issues do not rise to the WP:TNT level. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:59, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep—The article currently reads to me like... well, like a Wikipedia article. If there were tell-tale signs of LLM-generated text before, they aren't evident as of now. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
@Kurtis: While this is not to change your !vote, I recommend reading some of the points brought up in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 55#Am I crazy or are the majority of new articles LLM-assisted?. TL;DR, articles by new users that read flawlessly are themself a sign of AI use. As this article reads imo entirely without issue, I'm led to believe the page was created entirely by AI, meaning very minimal human oversight was involved in fact checking. Johnson524 16:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The article looks way better now as an encyclopedic entry. There is no need to transfer this to draft article. Abishe (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Precision cut lung slices

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

"ChatGPT, could you write me a long, meandering Wikipedia article about a niche scientific methodology?" "Absolutely! What a great suggestion!" Utter LLM garbage. There are a couple of reliable, secondary sources in the long list of references, but a topic this specific does not deserve this much space. At the very least this article should be stubified. But I would prefer delete as per WP:NOLLM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete and warn. or block User. The user has been blocked before. Time sink is the phrase. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
The original author was blocked and then unblocked. They do not seem to have caused any new trouble since the unblock so this might be unnecessary. DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
I think this so called article is new trouble. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
No, because this isn't a new article. M66JX hasn't touched this article since October 2023. Their unblock was in December 2024. Their editing before the block, which this article reflects, was very bad but they were given a second chance. Based on an (admittedly cursory) look at their edits, I don't think that they have done anything bad since then. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Either Delete or Stubbify. Earwig's copyvio detector is beeping at 65.8% suggesting that this is too close to somebody else's material whether via AI or not. There may be a legitimate topic here, hence the possibility to reduce it to a stub. That said, it is a virtual orphan. The only incoming links from other articles are, possibly spurious, "See also" entries. That might well tip it towards a Delete. There would be nothing to stop anybody else having a go at writing a proper article later if they think Reliable Sources justify it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"Administering treatments in PCLS can be challenging because the entire slice is bathed in the compound or stimulant of interest. This poses difficulties in translating findings to inhaled or systemic applications in vivo, making dosing and translation [49: complex.https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/9/12/2479.short]

Administering treatments in PCLS can be challenging because the entire slice is bathed in the compound or stimulant of interest. This poses difficulties in translating findings to inhaled or systemic applications in vivo, making dosing and translation complex. [Ewart, L.; Dehne, E. M.; Fabre, K.; Gibbs, S.; Hickman, J.; Hornberg, E.; Ingelman-Sundberg, M.; Jang, K. J.; Jones, D. R.; Lauschke, V. M.; Marx, U.; Mettetal, J. T.; Pointon, A.; Williams, D.; Zimmermann, W. H.; Newham, P. (2018). "Application of Microphysiological Systems to Enhance Safety Assessment in Drug Discovery". Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 58: 65–82. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052722. PMID 29029591.]

If this malformed paragraph with a completely different citation weren't a giveaway, the edit history has multiple thousand-character edits in the same minute on October 12, 2023. Delete. SenshiSun (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I didn't notice those timestamps. That was definitely either being copied in from somewhere else or generated on the fly. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. This user is not writing content. That is obvious. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified with a modified version of the AI1 template because the offending edits were from 2023, predating current policy. Here's the link. SenshiSun (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete and please do warn the editor who created this article.

Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: The page creator says they were copying from a Google doc, not from an LLM. I've asked about who wrote the document. SenshiSun (talk) 13:41, 9 July 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Administration of the East India Company

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

Disputed draftification, WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Many important asserted facts have no references, this depends on two reference sources only and is written like an essay. Anything salvageable should be merged into East India Company. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Companies, India, and United Kingdom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:35, 6 July 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 As the creator of this article, I have worked hard to add reliable historical context and textbook references to this page. The administration structure of the EIC is a major historical topic that deserves a focused, dedicated article for students looking for quick summaries, rather than being buried in the massive main article. I am highly willing to continue improving the prose and formatting based on community feedback. Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a study guide, brief exam notes, quick summaries, and items of that ilk. It is a repository of encyclopaedia articles. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment The above !vote is AI-generated (100% score by two detectors). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 6 July 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.

While I understand Wikipedia is not a study guide, this article is not a mere set of flashcards or exam notes; it is a comprehensively structured historical overview of a major institutional apparatus. The level of granular detail provided here regarding the three Presidencies, the Cornwallis Code of 1793, the exact structural evolution of the Indian Civil Service, and the administrative divisions of the military/police goes far beyond a brief summary. I am actively working on expanding the prose and refining the encyclopedic tone to ensure it meets standard repository guidelines. ~~~~

Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:AITALK, please do not use LLM or other AI-based tools to generate your contributions to discussions like this. We have no interest in reading what some text-prediction algorithm thinks we should read. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of History-related AfD discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Given the creator's behavior I think we can safely assume this article is AI-generated. Jfire (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 17:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom and East India Company can cover most of this in any case. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Selective merge to East India Company — the topic is notable (Company administration is well documented in academic scholarship), so this isn't a WP:GNG problem. But the article relies on two sources, one a school textbook, and reads as an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. No one here has offered scholarly sourcing to support a standalone article, and the parent article can absorb this content without difficulty. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, seeing more evidence of WP:LLM than of a standalone article. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:36, 7 July 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.

Zhenjiang Vinegar Industry Park

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

This was previously PROD'd for deletion for violating WP:NEWLLM and a discussion may still be warranted. Amigao (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, the article has been refilled with more citation and revised. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Travel and tourism, Economics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple problems here. The article text does read as LLM and the author's edits have not addressed that. Possibly it is machine-translated with LLM involvement; if so, the original has not been credited and needs to be. I can't evaluate the sourcing as it is all in Chinese, but every source will have to be checked for the subtle source/text mismatches and close paraphrasing typical of recent LLM. Beyond that, the article is promotional throughout, reading like an advertisement. I will !vote Delete based on the first issue but the second is also serious. M kuhner (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Conventional Commits Specification

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

This article appears to mostly have been generated (potentially by an LLM) from two academic papers, and conflates some of the content of the papers with the specification itself. I removed an example of this in an attempt to improve the article, but I now think the required changes are too significant and it should be deleted.

The structure of the article seems to be inferred from the content of the academic papers, rather than being helpful for the reader. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related AfD discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 12:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I've stubified the article to remove the conflation of conventional commits with the methodology used in the papers. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: the creator's edit summary outright acknowledges this was created using Gemini AI and manual editing, so an LLM was definitely involved at some point (even if the remnants of its output have been at least reduced in the stubification). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
The original text has effectively all been removed or rewritten. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Emergency Response Coordination Centre

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY guideline with no possibility of improvement. The article currently only references primary sources, and upon searching, there seems to be no independent coverage of this organization sufficient to meet notability requirements. Additionally, the article itself shows signs of LLM usage and reads as more of a brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Concerns have already been tagged and raised on the talk page by other editors without any action over several months. Improving or cleaning up the page does not currently seem feasible. Wichey (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related AfD discussions. Wichey (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep There are sources. See , , , , for example. Clearly meets WP:GNG. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 14:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: The subject appears to be notable. The article should either be cleaned up or tagged appropriately so that other editors can improve it. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
If it is kept, it needs to be reduced to a stub so it can be written properly from scratch from secondary sources, not this obvious insider jargon. Fences&Windows 22:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Beatrice Mensah-Tayui

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

WP:BLP with no effective sources. LLM generated. Refs are profiles, PR and routine business news. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Vote Keep - I am the author of this page and it passes WP:GNG as significant, reliable sources are independent of the subject, as seen here. Sources provided as references are from both local and foriegn notable media houses and are not just any routine business news. --Siagoddess (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
NONE of those sources are reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Suspected AI-generated articles, Ghana, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment Lets examine the first two ref blocks:

Ref 1 This has been taken from social media. Its social media driven. Its not independent. Its non-rs.
Ref 2 Shown in an image. Not independent and a passing mention.
Ref 3 This is a press-release. Not independent.
Ref 4 404 on this.
Ref 5 Its a press-release on the company. Not independent.
Ref 6 This in X of Y site, bringing together lots of folks for advertising. Its a profile and not in-depth.
Ref 7 404 on this. Reads like an interview.
Ref 8 This is the company. Passing mention.

This a a WP:BLP. There is no WP:SECONDARY sources here to prove the person is notable. Not a single one. It is all a combination of business news, passing mentions, interviews and profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 6 July 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)} 18:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom's comment on sources HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The result was redirect to John Farrelly (director). Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Naxos (film)

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

Unnotable film - no sources with significant coverage. SLIDD yap 05:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Ireland. SLIDD yap 05:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Film that hasn't been shown to meet notability requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The subject film seemingly hasn't yet been released, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hasn't (yet) been widely distributed or received multiple full-length reviews in GNG-worthy publications, hasn't received a major award, doesn't appear to be taught as a subject in a film-study program at an accredited university, and doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria given in WP:NFILM. The sources in the article either don't mention the subject film at all, or only mention it trivially/in-passing. I can find no other sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic (only other passing mentions like this). The WP:COI and WP:LLM and related issues at play here do very little to help. At best this title could be WP:DRAFTIFIED until after it has actually been released. Personally I think it should be deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to its director John Farrelly (director) as the film does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM per arguments above. Taghdtaighde (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM. Spleodrach (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect This film fails the notability requirements as per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It lacks reliable sources with significant independent coverage. It should be redirected to the John Farrelly (director) article instead. Staticspector (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Eagle's Wings Ministries

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

LLM-generated article on a Christian Z!onist ministry with no evidence of receiving any sort of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles, Christianity, and Organizations. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Bridget (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Question: why did you write Z!onist, do you mean "zionist"? ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Used to the algospeak I suppose. Almost looks normal to me. JTtheOG (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Dean A. Robb

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

Article shows signs of LLM use, particularly sources not matching claims. See case at WP:AI noticeboard § What is reasonable to do when text is identified by AI as LLM-generated, but editor insists it is not? Note that despite title of case, my conclusion that it is LLM is based on human judgment, not algorithms. I think the article subject may be notable, but recommend deletion with no prejudice against making a new human-written version. M kuhner (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Law-related AfD discussions. M kuhner (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, Politics, Suspected AI-generated articles, Illinois, and Michigan. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:GNG. That said, I've seen the discussion on the AI noticeboard and I must say I'm absolutely disgusted by the way the editor who authored the article has been treated. They acknowledged freely to have used Grammarly for light proofreading and that was it, there is no significant evidence to the contrary, and yet he was repeatedly harassed on the noticeboard until they left active editing. If there was any violation of LLM usage policy, that was utterly technical and not related to the real problems the LLM policy was meant to counter, that is a flood of an unreasonable amount of AI-slop articles impossible to verify. I am shocked by how LLM patrolling is creating a climate of suspicion and, now I see, driving away good faith editors. This is a shame that has nothing to do with keeping LLM at bay. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I am curious why you don't think the pervasive source/text mismatches are an issue. M kuhner (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
They are an issue, of course; they were an issue even much before LLMs (I'm here since 2004, I've always seen that happening). That doesn't change that such behavior is concerning, as much and more than LLM usage. cyclopia ^speak! 08:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Delete This was clearly an accomplished legal professional, but that said I'm not finding RS to support notability. His name comes up a lot in Google search, but nearly all in trial documents - where he was doing his job. The obituaries are mostly from organizations he was associated with. I did find that he wrote some professional materials (see below), but I can't find more about them with one exception: The rights of railway workers which went to two editions. For most authors we usually require reviews or "best seller lists" and I can't find either.
North Country Lawyer DA Robb - Mich. BJ, 1985 - HeinOnline

Use of lay witnesses to prove medical testimony DA Robb - Prac. Law., 1962 - HeinOnline

GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES 1963-1964 RE McKean, EA Blaty, RJ Osborne, JS Burak, DA Robb… - HeinOnline

Checklist: Plaintiff's Opening Statement Personal Injury Case D Robb - Guild Prac., 1966 - HeinOnline

Lawyers Desk Reference DA Robb, HM Philo - 1979 - Lawyers Co-operative Publishing …

Lamona (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, seems to meet notability clearly to pass GNG. P.S. I was appalled when I saw the discussion on the AI Noticeboard - that is a ridiculous and in my opinion awful way to treat a seemingly good faith editor. Jishara (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep based on what's available: sources 2, 3 and 6, all legitimate obituaries, are three valid sources. Only source 1 appears to be clearly bogus; 4 and 5 might not be reliable. In this case, TNT would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft: ? There seems to be a story here, but the sourcing isn't quite there. I don't find any about this person, but given the time for when they were active, probably in paper sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

DeviantArt: The Movie

Administration of the East India Company

Related Articles