I propose redirecting to Silver tsunami because it is currently a page with significant LLM issues (tagged by Gnomingstuff in Jan 2026) which duplicates content in Silver tsunami (and Silver economy, Population ageing). Since nobody appears to be improving the article a redirect seems appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Hi -- please do not ping me, if I have a comment on an AfD I will weigh in there myself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Support. AI or not, even juding from refs, it is a hopeless WP:SYNTH impossible to clean. it was created by a SPA, and it looks like it was a student assignment. I've been cleaning after SPAs Wikiversity for years, and nos ttudents discovered new ways to handle essay assignments in a lazy way. I think this shop must be closed or allowed only under tight scrutiny of responsible wikipedians, with 2-5 years ofexperience. --Altenmann>talk 17:30, 7 November 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 by LLMPROD. Anyone can create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 12:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
The article was originally created by a blocked user (Historian Felix) and consists almost entirely of text from a large language model. The article has references that are "War History" blogs and lacks any significant, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. The title is also unencyclopedic as the engagement is historically recognized as a combat rather than a major battle. Russo-winner1234 (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment: is there any reason this needed to come to AfD despite already being tagged for LLMPROD, and the five-day grace period having already elapsed? WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:44, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
I don't know what @Russo-winner1234's motivation was, but it was a good thing since it should be a redirect. Jahaza (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
It seems to me that either the LLMPROD should be removed, or this AfD should be speedy-closed, otherwise they will get into a catfight. Personally I would speedy-close this and let the LLMPROD run. M kuhner (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Second Battle of Kulm, which is also known by this name unless and until a new article is written about the earlier battle. Jahaza (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
If the AfD stands I agree with Redirect. M kuhner (talk) 04:47, 8 November 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.
Procedural speedy renom for AfD. 4 out of 5 of the keep !votes on the previous AfD have now been blocked for WP:UPE. – LuniZunie(talk) 02:47, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment Couldn't this be processed through DRV? – The Grid (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
I mean, the close wasn't incorrect at the time. And the other cases are based on the page having been deleted, which it was kept. – LuniZunie(talk) 03:21, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete (am NPPer who nominated it for deletion the first go-around) the UPE's and an editor in good standing brought up 1.5 to 2 sources that could plausibly contribute to sigcov under NCORP, which is not the three required. The article is also AI-generated, given the AISIGNS in the article and the UPE farms use of AI in AfD discussions. If this is an actually notable topic, an editor will come around and create it without generating it with AI in defiance of NOLLM or as an UPE. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Amended !vote by adding the underline portions to not imply the one editor not blocked is an UPE. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Zero notability. Previously draftified then moved back with no improvement. Also suspected AI and mostly unrefed. –TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 20:18, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Very likely AI generated, follows similar formatting to WP:AILIST and the page creator only added references after creation. RemoveRedSky[talk] 20:49, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Same rationale as when I moved it to draftspace, no indication of notability and no coverage of the church. I also suspect AI may have been used to write the article based on the formatting of the lists. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 21:24, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:G15. This checker shows it was definitely AI generated: . Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - no need to put this on AFD, entirely AI generated articles are eligible for speedy delete. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
It was previously tagged for G15 but it was declined, since AISIGNS are not eligible for G15. –TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 06:34, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
they absolutely should be eligible for G15, anywhere we can propose that to the big bosses of Wikipedia? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above all and NOLLLM.Dylan Reed (Ping me) 07:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Article was written by Bharatwikiexpert, now blocked for promotion; substantially edited by NarasinghP, now blocked for LLM use; and then by Truthseekerindian, now blocked as a sock of Bharatwikiexpert (or vice versa). There is no substantial text from other editors. The article appears promotional and also LLM-generated. Discussion at AINB suggested that LLMPROD can't be used as multiple authors are (maybe) involved, so I am bringing to AfD. I do not think anything here should be salvaged: WP:TNT is a better response to this mixture of UPE, sockpuppetry, and LLM. M kuhner (talk) 19:18, 5 November 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. Based on source analysis trumping assertion and unrefuted argument that this is ai SpartazHumbug! 12:02, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
The article does not establish that the subject meets WP:GNG. The cited sources do not provide significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. AriuCH (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
just to clarify, is the issue related to the sources being in arabic?, or do you consider the sources insufficient in terms of significant independent coverage? i would appreciate any specific guidance on what kind of sources would be needed to establish compliance with WP Thankk you Skelatorr (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Query: the cited sources seem to be, at least from the English translations of their titles, to be WP:SIGCOV: I see "Ali Mansour Al-Kayyali's Approach by Using Context to Understand the Qur'anic Text", and "Linguistic Interpretation of Ali Mansour Kayali: A Critical Analytical Study". If these are decent, peer-reviewed journals, then this would be an easy WP:GNG pass. Now, one of those links is broken, but this one, at least through my browser's automatic translation, seems legitimate. What's the argument here -- that they're not SIGCOV, that they're not independent, or they're not RS? UndercoverClassicistT·C 19:15, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I read through the sources, but I couldn't find much coverage of Kayali himself. They seem to focus more on his specific interpretations than on him as a person. AriuCH (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
If someone's got articles in academic journals dedicated to discussing and debating (or indeed debunking) their ideas, that's pretty much automatically a pass for notability. The first criterion of WP:NSCHOLAR is The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (emphasis mine). It's not necessary that the coverage of the person's ideas crosses over into e.g. their wider biography. I think this looks like a straightforward keep unless the independence or reliability of those sources is in any doubt. UndercoverClassicistT·C 20:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. I just don't think that discussing or criticizing someone's ideas in academic papers is enough, on its own, to show that their work has had a significant impact. We'd need to see clearer evidence of that impact. I also raised concerns under WP:GNG, as well as WP:PROF. AriuCH (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
I also raised concerns under WP:GNG, as well as WP:PROF.: what do you mean by that? If a subject passes any notability guideline, it's notable: there's no requirement for it to pass all of them. Indeed, if every article subject needed to pass WP:GNG, we wouldn't have subject-specific guidelines. Even then, though, someone's ideas being discussed, with their name attached to them, qualifies as discussion of the person under GNG. UndercoverClassicistT·C 09:21, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I just think we need to establish that at least one of the notability criteria is met. If you believe WP:NSCHOLAR is met, I respect your view. AriuCH (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
what Does this all mean?
does this article pass? or its still in deletion? Skelatorr (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
No decision has been made yet. This discussion will probably run for about a week, after which an uninvolved administrator (i.e. not me) will assess whether there is consensus for deletion. If there is, it will be deleted; if not, it won't. You might want to have a read of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and decide if you think the article's subject meets them, and then add your point of view to the discussion. It's usual to write either "keep" or "delete", in bold font, to help the closing admin see which side you take. There's a good guide to this process and how to participate in it at this page, which you might find helpful. UndercoverClassicistT·C 14:32, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
I understand that the reliability and weight of these publications can be discussed, and I am not suggesting that every source automatically establishes notability. However, I believe the academic attention given specifically to Kayali's work, alongside the independent media coverage, makes a reasonable case for keeping the article. These sources should be considered collectively when assessing whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Delete, in addition to the nom, I think that this article is likely AI-generated. Reference nr. 2 in Diff/1382818267 is not online anymore (leads to an "Account suspended" error page), and was last archived in September 2024. That would have been fine, but that isn't what was cited when the article was created in October 2026. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:57, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@Gurkubondinn The content is way too vague for me to consider it likely to have been AI generated. Can you provide some reasoning to back up this claim?
Keep under the assumption that the article's contents are not stained by LLM. UndercoverClassicist's argument makes sense here, extensive academic coverage is sufficient for a pass under several of the referenced guidelines.
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.
I suspect WP:LLM use here. Some fluffy phrases that come across as possibly AI-generated to me include (emphasis added):
The show focused on news, analysis, and commentary for the National Football League, delivered with a mix of insight and humor.
The format combined NFL news and analysis, commentary, interviews, and listener engagement. It was noted for blending serious football coverage with humor and the personal chemistry of the hosts.
Chris Wesseling was a central voice of the podcast, known for his analysis and humor.
His influence was frequently acknowledged in later episodes, and his absence was deeply felt by both the hosts and the audience.
There's also the WP:AIBOLDWP:AILIST in "Hosts and format". Some of the author's edit summaries also feel a bit sketchy to me but they haven't edited enough for me to get a definitive feel. Shocksingularity (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis here, shocksingularity. I agree that there isn't an overwhelming body of edit summaries to look at, but ones like this and this feel like WP:AISUMM.
This source, p. 143-8, raises serious questions about the credibility of the information in this article and about the existence of the Ogiso monarchy itself. Should be WP:TNT'd. WritingAboutCreepypastas (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 04:15, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@WritingAboutCreepypastas, WP:NPOV, if sources disagree on something then we include the various viewpoints. We have lots of articles on theories, mythology etc. (also, WP:Deletion isn't cleanup, though tbf AI-generated articles often get deleted at AfD. But in this case, a lot of the article was written by someone not using AI) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:07, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. A discussion of sources belongs in the article itself (see e.g. here), and the Eisenhofer paper + others that it cites are a great place to start. To me, the fact that there are scholarly articles discussing Egharevba's value means that it is worth including with a full discussion, not ignoring. His work exhibits the same problems as almost all other sources based on oral history, but that doesn't mean they should be systematically excluded from Wikipedia. I can't dedicate significant time to it right now, but I'm willing to write a historiography section. Catjacket (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Not notable. Previously draftified for notability (among other reasons: AI, COI, promotional) then moved back into main without fixing the issues. –TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 10:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable per WP:GNG, its most reliable source from the WSJ is leading to a cyber daily which is not the company just a regular category. In solidarity, FestusBashara (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. I’m the original author, so that’s my connection to the article. The nomination includes two issues: problems with the earlier draft and whether the company itself is notable. I have since manually rewritten and condensed the article, removed promotional material and weak references, and addressed the AI-writing concern. If a specific sentence still needs work, that can be handled through normal editing. WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP apply to that specific concern.
On NCORP, the CRN and PitchBook pieces are dedicated coverage of the company’s launch, leadership, cybersecurity focus and services. That is not passing coverage or "inherited" notability. WP:TRADES calls for CAUTION with trade publications, for sure, but not exclusion. The WSJ citation may be a passing mention, but that doesn’t invalidate CRN or PitchBook. The strongest sources should be assessed individually. And under WP:NEXIST, notability depends on the published coverage, not the quality of an earlier Wikipedia draft. So I am a firm keep, and will suggest that we address any remaining prose or sourcing issues through ordinary editing rather than deleting the whole page ZeroSGravity (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
The CRN and PitchBook pieces are both coverage of routine business activities and do not contribute to notability under NCORP. –TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:56, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
@ZeroSGravity Please don't use an AI chatbot to write talk page comments. See WP:LLMCOMM - you need to use your own words. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete, this most significant coverage I have found is inCyber Defense Magazine, elsewhere there is passing mention. The CRN source is about the then-new CEO. There are many other reliable sources that meet WP:CORPTRIV such as Yahoo Finance. Therefore it appears that the subject of this AfD fails WP:NCORP.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:35, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The nomination says the company is not notable and then adds AI, COI and promotional tone, but only notability is a reason to delete, and the rest is cleanup for the talk page or WP:COIN. The August move log gave "promotional/ad, possible COI, machine-generated" as the reasons and never mentioned notability. CRN (2018, a full article on the launch), The CyberWire (2020) and PitchBook (2018) give the company the coverage WP:NCORP asks for, and the weak WSJ newsletter citation can be swapped out without touching that. CatherineOfSiena (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. I chose "promotional/ad, possible COI, machine-generated" as my draftification reasons in August as key issues with the article, not a complete list of problems. Looked at the three sources described as the strongest. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Leaning keep. Too many of the sources are interviews, but the fact that major publications like the San Francisco Examiner choose to interview her still speaks to notability. Other GNG-worthy sources about her or her organizations include:
Keepthis article is directly about her. I found more on ProQuest , , that can help meet WP:BASIC criteria. Two interviews in secondary sources should help too , . Thanks, Hawfinch52 (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Note - Hawfinch52 has only 50 edits logged and has received numerous warnings in regard to potential undisclosed paid editing. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 04:18, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Although it is true that there is some concerns about UPE, but overall, sources looks significant and secondary enough to be passed on as a keep. BengalMCtalk 03:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. To pass WP:NAUTHOR one needs to be author of multiple notable books. One book with reviews doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, Interviews are not counted towards GNG. And this isblacklisted: source. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:57, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Her business impact is sufficient for notability, e.g. One Million by One Million, starting three companies, as well as "LinkedIn’s Top 10 Influencers in 2015." —ERcheck (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
This article is based on a single primary source (research paper) and I have not been able to find any reliable additional sources. The author is under investigation at WP:AI noticeboard/Simfish but this article is short and not clearly LLM, though I note that the CAS number is incorrect and might be hallucinated. In any case it fails WP:GNG. M kuhner (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep I added the CAS number from PubChem source. The cross does not mean that it is incorrect, just that it has not been checked by an independent person against an authoritative source, such as the CAS database. So that part of the argument is debunked. The substance is actually for sale: or in catalogs . And so important enough to have an article here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
The link given in the article does not work. However the given CAS number does show up in a large number of product catalogs, so there is some reason to believe it's correct. I don't have database access to check it: do you? A correct link here would be very helpful.
WP:Notability (chemicals) calls for multiple secondary sources such as books and review articles, or potentially primary sources such as research articles: it does not mention appearance in product catalogs. M kuhner (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
An example of popularity not yielding significant coverage. The sources in the article are lists of popular YouTubers without more than a few sentences of coverage, and non-WP:BLP-quality tabloid coverage of personal troubles (WP:SPORTSKEEDA, WP:DEXERTO, WP:DISTRACTIFY) ~ A412talk! 20:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, would not appear to pass WP:NPERSON or WP:NENTERTAINER with or without LLM use. That said, I am getting significant AI vibes (random focus on viewer statistics when that means nothing on Wikipedia, for example). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete–Besides the AI use, PopularMMOS atm doesn't have enough non-tabloid and non-trivial coverage to warrant an article. Online popularity doesn't automatically translate to encyclopedic notability–no amount of cries of "but he has [X] million YouTube subscribers!" will ever change that. An unfortunate reality is that mainstream media tends to ignore Internet-centric topics unless they are a popular meme or politically relevant. It is high time to give Pat the WP:BFDI treatment and restrict any feature recreations of the article to either admins or extended-confirmed accounts. Giovanni Potage (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Strong keep (author) There are plenty of sources which mention multiple winners. Moreover, each winner has been sourced by ICC and cricinfo.
The List of FIFA World Cup winning players was used as a subtle blueprint / inspiration by me to create this article, and it is factually verified. I was literally planning to bring this to FL status LordPharaoh (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Isn't a very convincing rationale. Also, do you even know what WP:SYNTH is? I am aware some players have the times they won mentioned, but do they mention the list in one? Or is the article using multiple sources to calculate winners, and the number of times they have won? And using the squads to calculate rather than just actual players profiles is a prime example of WP:SYNTH. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep: WP:CALC handles the OR/Synth concerns, in my opinion; we're adequately sourcing a list of years, and then counting those years. A count is clearly a simple calculation; so, as long as:
The sources are reliable (they are)
The sources are meaningfully reflected (they are)
Then this is perfectly valid content, in my opinion.
The notability concern is more relevant, but the concept of being a World Cup winner is notable to my mind; to quote WP:NLIST:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, [...]
And I can find adequate reliable sources discussing this grouping, in articles such as this] from the BBC, this retrospective from Wisden, this from Geo News, this (non-independent) from Cricket Australia. All these articles are framed around the connection of being a World Cup-winning player, and it's being part of that group or set that warranted this coverage, even if it's only piecemeal to the group as a whole. It's a common thread amongst them all, at least. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:43, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete primarily because it cannot be properly verified, and is WP:SYNTH, and even if it was verifiable, it would still likely fail WP:NLIST. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Keep (article creator). Replying to the points raised:
SYNTH: Membership comes directly from each franchise's season article (the squad tables), and the title counts are simple tallies of those entries (WP:CALC), not a new conclusion. I am open to replace the per-player profile refs with per-season squad sources so each season is verifiable.
NLIST: The set is well defined (players in a title-winning squad), and reliable sources do discuss title-winning players as a group, for example the most-titles lists by CricketTimes and Sportskeeda. I accept that coverage is thinner for players with one title, but sources do confirm this and they are mentioned in wp squad bases. The scope of the article can also be altered.
INDISCRIMINATE / NOTDATABASE: The list is bounded by a stated criterion and is a navigational aid to the squad articles, with context in the lead and by-team and by-nationality summaries, rather than raw data.
I dont know, I just used proper formatting to answer each point raised by Vestrian, and yeah. LordPharaoh (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
GPTZero confirms, it is indeed 100% Ai-written response. Vestrian24Bio 11:50, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
??? I have never touched AI while editing articles, this is new LordPharaoh (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete. According to this AI checker, this article displays signs it was LLM-generated. Other articles by the creator were also LLM-generated. The results for this article:
human: 0.994
ai: 0.006 Aneirinn (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that LordPharoah is using LLMs. Also, @Aneirinn, you put this article into GPTZero, it tells you it isn't AI-generated (99.4% human), and still !vote to delete it on that basis? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
If it was all made by a human it would be 100% human, however, it was not. Aneirinn (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
@Aneirinn, that is not how GPTZero works, it is speculative, very far from exact and tbh pretty unreliable, see WP:GPTZEROKowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
@Kowal2701: for the comment they left above GPTZero gives 100% AI. Vestrian24Bio 16:20, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Hmm, it doesn't read like AI to me, and wp squad bases is a human sign (I think? normally would be capitalised), but Pangram also says AI . There's also more evidence of LLM use found in the AINB thread, so it looks like I was wrong here. Odd because in addition to the false positives for markdown their denials seem genuine, AI-generated sports articles that are mostly tables are such a pain to detect Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Possibly rescuable, but this is AI generated and has a distinct lack of referencing. WP:TNT applies because of WP:NOLLM. A human written article might show Eldredge to have some notability, but this one cannot stay in mainspace. This seems to be part of a series of AI written drafts and articles plonked uncritically into Wikipedia by the creating editor. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 16:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, probably should've draftified + tagged it though, saves the time of an AfD Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:29, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete per NOLLM. Does this message make it qualify for G7? Kisseran (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
@Kisseran I think it can be drawn to the closer's attention, as you have, but it is more of an 'I don't care' than a fully fleshed out opinion. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment: With respect to unilateral draftification, since it had been accepted at AfC, it could not be sent to draft (WP:DRAFTOBJECT) since "Another editor has asserted that the page belongs in mainspace". The fact that it needs a total rewrite militated against a nomination to send to draft. Thus I chose deletion as a preferred outcome. The community will decide, of course. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 20:09, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete as the editor who launched the AINB case. travismulch 20:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete per NOLLM/TNT. There may be a case for GNG notability but the LLM writing has confused the sourcing to the point where I can't tell whether the aahn.org link is a separate in-depth source as, or the same as, the biographical dictionary that it in turn lists as a source. In any case we would need at least two in-depth sources that are more independent from each other than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Delete, fails NOLLM. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:48, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
I propose redirecting to Jacobite Syrian Christian Church because there is no evidence that the subject has standalone notability. The only sources in the article are a self-published site, a Facebook post and the org's own website. I didn't find any other sources. This page appears to have been rewritten from an AI-generated version in draftspace and I don't think any of it needs to be retained, but this article can be redirected to the proposed target, where the subject is already mentioned. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Likely WP:LLM use: Lots of WP:AILIST and some WP:RO3 in the platform section as well as inconsistent WP:AICURLY in the history section (both curly quotes and straight quotes were used in a single edit by a single user) Shocksingularity (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
I see this page was a redirect before the full rewrite that appears to be the subject of discussion here: Here's that diff. Would you like the redirect to be restored? SenshiSun (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Redirect agree with nominator and the previous target is good Yoblyblob (Talk):) 15:25, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
The previous target lists every party of every state except Hawaii, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. It contains no information whatsoever on the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, except an out-of-date listing for chairperson and whether it had ballot access four years ago. Idacticus (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States): that was the result of the first nomination from 2022. It left the door open for article content to return if sufficient coverage emerged, and certainly that should be reinforced, but an LLM-generated iteration clearly isn't going to work. WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:00, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
The first nomination was for a completely different reason. Is that the reason we should discuss, or would you prefer to discuss whether it was LLM-generated? Idacticus (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
The vertical list seemed to be the best way to present a summary of a platform that is originally divided into these concepts. (https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/platform) Any rule of 3 was an accident of my attempts to summarize their positions, and I'd be happy to get any constructive criticism on how to do it better. The curly quote marks are from a copy and paste of a specific term I wanted to make sure I spelled correctly from the article cited (https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/history), and I didn't notice they were a different format. The only thing I used a large language model for on this was getting citations. Idacticus (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The writing looks nothing like LLMs. The only noted signs of LLM usage were citations to Wikipedia and Grokipedia, which are very weak indicators for LLM-generated text. Any concerns with original research and poorly sourced content can be dealt with by removing portions of the text. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
I have removed most of the original research and other problematic content from the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
@Gurkubondinn: did you have additional reasons to mark this article as AI-generated that I'm not seeing? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Looks like I put most of it in the tag, created with references to Grokipedia and circular references to Wikipedia. There were also more circular references to Wikipedia added in Diff/1371877542.
I do remember about this article now that I take a look at it, but I don't remember what lead to me finding it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as failing NOLLM, per my other reply here and the {{ai-generated}} that I placed on the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
It is very plausible that a new editor who doesn't know about WP:RS would manually insert references to Wikipedia and Grokipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep, as I found some reviews and from poking around on Google (more coverage is likely on Proquest), although if it is AI-generated, another user will have to add the sources and rewrite the article to keep. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. Satisfies GNG. There is also some other coverage in Google Books (eg in a history book from University of Texas Press and an album review in Rap Pages ) and Google News (eg The Source ). The article was created in 2011, so all you have to do is revert the page to the last human generated version, which appears to be the revision of 17 March 2014. The wikiproject essay WP:HUMANSIGNS says we can assume that edits made before 30 November 2022 were entirely human generated. James500 (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
On September 19, 2026, I PROD'd this article for the following reasons: "Pretty much any source anyone is gonna find on this topic will be of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is already its own article. Otherwise, there's no evidence of notability." I will admit, I was also motivated by the inclusion of the AI-generated tag.
JASpencerobjected to this, saying that notwithstanding clauses are a common legal provision beyond Section 33, before going on to expand the article. However, one month later, and I am still not convinced. In his bid to prove the subject's notability, he could only find one reliable, secondary source that discussed the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth. Given that the search for evidence of this subject's notability has turned up short, this article should be deleted. Lazman321 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The Congressional Research Service, BBC, Brick Court Chambers and the House of Commons Library aren't reliable secondary sources? JASpencer (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The CRS only talks about one notwithstanding clause in-depth within the context a specific law and doesn't really discuss the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth, which isn't a strong indicator of notability. BBC does not talk about any notwithstanding clause, both in general or in context, in-depth. Brick Court Chambers is a self-published blog, and the House of Commons Library is a repository of primary sources. Lazman321 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I'll be doing a keep comment when I have time, but a suggested compromise doesn't seem to have been tried - which is to rename the general worldwide legal principle which we are discussing to something like Non Obstante Clause and pointing Notwithstanding Clause to the article that is narrowly limited to Canada, as the more common search tetm. This should satisfy the Canadian nationalists while keeping the general legal and constitutional concept safely in what is supposed to be an Encyclopedia.
Keep This is an important concept in legal drafting that is not just present in Canada but also the United Kingdom, Australia, India and the United States - and that's limited to what is in the article.
I quite understand the argument that the phrase "Notwithstanding Clause" is shorthand for an important and often reported element in Canada's constitutional arrangements, but a competing use of a term has never been an argument for excluding another legitimate, let alone more general and abstract, use of the term. I do accept that this opens up a question of the ownership of the address for "Notwithstanding Clause", but suppression of a legitimate and more general article on which the particular Canadian example is based is not an appropriate use of the AfD process.
On a small technical note I think that the nominator has become confused about reliable secondary sources when "only" citing a legal textbook probably by looking at Sources rather than References; as they have missed a national broadcaster, a barristers' chambers and the official research services for the British Parliament and the US Congress.
Wikipedia is big enough for two articles, which is just as well as if one of the articles should be merged into the other it would be the Canadian example rather than the Common Law principle on which the example is based. The problem is that we don't have one URL, but that's a question of naming rather than deletion.
Delete - the examples (other than the Canadian one) seem to be about the use of the word "notwithstanding" in legal documents, not "Notwithstanding clause" as it's own thing. It could be kept as "Notwithstanding (legal term)" or something. But clearly the main current use of "notwithstanding clause" is the Canadian example. SECProto (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - its use in contracts and last wills and testaments are ubiquitous. Do you really want our readers to abandon us for Grokpedia? I'll die on this hill, which is that AfD is not for tinkering with articles, notwithstanding that it's just one little article. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
So an article tagged as containing AI-generated content with little to no evidence of meeting WP:GNG must be kept because...we want to keep people away from Grokpedia? We shouldn't be basing our decisions on whether it will lead to readers to switch to Grokpedia; we should be basing them on whether it will improve Wikipedia. Do you have multiple secondary sources that analyze the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth? Lazman321 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
That's not the notability criteria. The criteria is whether there is evidence that it's being used. And there's plenty of evidence of that. JASpencer (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
That has never been the notability criteria. WP:GNG says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And it does clarify that by sources, it means multiple secondary sources, as in sources that analyze primary sources such as laws. Lazman321 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOLLM without preventing a recreation that is human written Isla🏳️⚧ 12:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The nominator's argument is that the we need at least two examples of significant coverage prescinding from Section 33, and at present we only have one. But here is one that concerns law in India. And here is another (esp., but not limited to, pp 237–244), dealing with U.S. law. Searching for the term non obstante will reveal many others. Arbitrarily0(talk) 00:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anti-Grokpedia sentiment aside, sources can be added and LLM content cleaned up during this discussion. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of creating Non obstanteNon obstante as a redirect. The two pages can be swapped once this AfD is closed, if needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 15:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Stubbify and move to Non obstante as the best alternative to deletion. It is dangerous to leave LLM text around as its problems are more subtle than most other bad text and it can hang around for a long time. If this option is chosen I will volunteer to stubbify, if no one else wants to: please ping me. M kuhner (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
Apart from the one source given that just links to google scholar, no other mentions I can find about the place. Falls into WP:GNG pretty sure. PeepeeDino (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note on soft closure: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion on account of a previous AfD closed as keep Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano 07:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wiki-revisor - Claude-based diagnostic assistant that checks Spanish Wikipedia articles against the Manual of Style and reports issues for human editors to fix; it does not write or rewrite article text. WIP
Source search
wikipedia-mcp - MCP server letting AI agents search Wikipedia and retrieve summaries/content/links
Wiki Q&A (source) - WMF Future Audiences tool for asking Wikipedia questions
Video Answer Tool (source) - generates short videos answering queries from Wikipedia articles
Content discovery & exploration
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories
