Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources

Vialect

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

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

I don't think that Vialect is notable or shows general notability. Edward056686 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Article seems to be about the software program Noodle, but titled with the parent company, Vialect. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I could not find reliable sources about Noodle either. Edward056686 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Delete this corporate vanity page. No WP:RS seem to exist about this at all. We could possibly even have speedied this. FalconK (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:G15 as it is LLM-generated. Aneirinn (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Momentum Cyber

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

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

Not notable. 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Products, Computing, Internet, Suspected AI-generated articles, United States of America, California, and Texas. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 10:07, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This fails WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 11:10, 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)

Sramana Mitra

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Cited sources are non-independent. Possible COI/UPE. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Economics, Engineering, Computing, Suspected AI-generated articles, India, West Bengal, United States of America, and Massachusetts. – TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:16, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• 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:

  1. Guynn, Jessica (28 January 2008). "Yahoo's global reach still exceeds its grasp". The Los Angeles Times. p. 24.
  2. Mordock, Jeff (4 January 2016). "State picks three businesses for Silicon Valley program". The News Journal. pp. A4.

  Additionally, I found a review of one of her books:

  1. "Bootstrapping: Weapon of Mass Reconstruction". Home Business Magazine: The Home-Based Entrepreneur's Magazine. 16 (5). Home Business Magazine: 70. 1 September 2009. ISSN 1092-4779.

  pburka (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

• Keep this 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. BengalMC ^talk 03:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a lack of significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. To pass WP:NAUTHOR one needs multiple book reviews. Aneirinn (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

BPPSA

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

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

This article is 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Chemistry, and Suspected AI-generated articles. 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)

PopularMMOS

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

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

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) ~ A412 ^talk! 20:34, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related AfD discussions. Bridget (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Connecticut, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Bridget (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:G15 as it is LLM-generated. Aneirinn (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2026 (UTC)
• According to this AI checker, this article was LLM-generated. The results for this article:
• human: 0.0
• ai: 1.0
• DoubleGrazing declined WP:G15. WP:GPTZERO says consistently high AI scores (or a 100% AI score) is worth something. Aneirinn (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

List of Cricket World Cup winning players

List of Cricket World Cup winning players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pure WP:OR/WP:SYNTH article using multiple references to squads to calculate how many times a player won a World Cup and that also likely fails WP:NLIST anyways, even if it was verifiable. I am also nominating List of Women's Cricket World Cup winning players for the same reason. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Lists of people, Sports, Cricket, and Lists. Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:24, 1 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)

• Delete: WP:SYNTH articles failing WP:NLIST. ^Vestrian24_Bio 11:41, 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:

1. The sources are reliable (they are)
2. 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)

• Speedy Delete WP:G15. This article was LLM-generated. Aneirinn (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

  Question since I have nominated 2 pages for deletion, is your stance on the second article I mentioned (List of Women's Cricket World Cup winning players) the same as List of Cricket World Cup winning players? Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• According to this AI checker, both articles display signs they were LLM-generated. They should both be speedily deleted per WP:G15 as violations of WP:NOLLM.
• The results for List of Cricket World Cup winning players:
• human: 0.985
• ai: 0.015
• The results for List of Women's Cricket World Cup winning players:
• human: 0.518
• ai: 0.482 Aneirinn (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Also reported to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/LordPharaoh. ^Vestrian24_Bio 10:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G15, which I have just tagged. Kisseran (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops I overlooked this being two AfDs in one. Speedy delete List of Women's Cricket World Cup winning players per G15 and Delete List of Cricket World Cup winning players per NOLLM. Kisseran (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

List of Indian Premier League winning players

List of Indian Premier League winning players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SYNTH article failing WP:NLIST in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDATABASE. ^Vestrian24_Bio 14:03, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Cricket, Lists, and India. ^Vestrian24_Bio 14:05, 31 October 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)

	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.
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. LordPharaoh (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Did you possibly use AI to generate this comment? Doing so is prohibited, see WP:LLMTALK. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 23:00, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Clearly it was written with AI. Koshuri ^(あ!) 04:53, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that comment is not AI-generated Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:49, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

uhhh, no? LordPharaoh (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

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. ^Vestrian24_Bio 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)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Also reported to Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/LordPharaoh. ^Vestrian24_Bio 10:47, 3 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:GPTZERO Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:37, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: for the comment they left above GPTZero gives 100% AI. ^Vestrian24_Bio 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)

Adda Eldredge

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

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

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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:46, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Kisseran (talk) 16:54, 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:09, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as the editor who launched the AINB case. travis mulch 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)
• Delete per WP:NOLLM. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 21:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Patriarchal Centre, Puthencruz

Patriarchal Centre, Puthencruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Kerala. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

If it seems similar to the draftspace article, it's cause it's talking about the same subject. Halershes (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Libertarian Party of Hawaii

Libertarian Party of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 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)

Arman Sabir

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

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

Recent edits are WP:LLM generated. I checked media sources in my WP:BEFORE and unfortunately there is no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete agree with nom, seems no sigcov. // IndrasBet 「talk」 13:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under G:11 and WP:NOLLM. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. Agree with nominator. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

.G 36.6°C

.G 36.6°C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is obviously AI generated - WP:AIATTR, WP:AILIST, WP:AIWEASEL, WP:AITITLECASE, likely others, and scored as 1.0 AI/0.0 human on GPTZero. No reliable sources included (only sources are a YouTube link and an AI-generated article) Merlin04^talk_contribs 20:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Suspected AI-generated articles. Merlin04^talk_contribs 20:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete This seems very AI-generated to me as well. I was also not able to find anything that showcases the topics notability. MasterRayvis (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete After perusing, seems the logical conclusion. Halbared (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. Laura240406 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. And I can already see WP:AITITLECASE in my very eyes. This cyberpunk novel exists though (https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/1vvxeq3/sps_fiction_is_bleeding_into_reality_the/) but a Google search didn't yield any reliable results. — SimpleObjects-9ei 🎃 (trick or treat 👻) 00:34, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - entirely AI-generated article with no SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Hello everyone. As the creator of this page, I confirm that AI tools were used to help draft and structure the text. AI is becoming an integral part of our daily lives; fighting it today is like fighting the steam engine or the pocket calculator in the past. I do not intend to step back from using AI in my workflow.

  Regarding WP:NBOOK: I understand the current independent coverage may not yet meet the strict SIGCOV threshold for the mainspace. Therefore, I respectfully request that the article be Draftified rather than deleted. An audiobook version is currently in production. Once it is released and additional professional reviews become available, I will update the draft with the necessary secondary sources. Thank you. Rarecoins (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose drafting. I think fighting AI "today is like fighting the steam engine or the pocket calculator in the past", is a worthy cause if the results are content and sources with no strict editorial oversight. We could just all retire and let AI build an encyclopedia. The book was published May 1, 2026, which is likely too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, fails NOLLM, as confirmed right here by the submitting user. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Congress for the New Urbanism

Congress for the New Urbanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely generated by a WP:LLM. Specific WP:AISIGNS include WP:AIBOLD (in international reach section), WP:AILIST (4 different sections have lists), WP:AIPEACOCK, and WP:RO3. Shocksingularity (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related AfD discussions. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Dickinson State–Valley City State football rivalry

Dickinson State–Valley City State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source. Also, per @Cbl62:, we should have a reasonably high bar for rivalries between a pair of small NAIA programs Joeykai (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: American football and North Dakota. Joeykai (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, the article is heavily sourced, but the sources are all databases or non-independent reportage from the schools. Cbl62 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Ping me if sources are found that show significant notability Publicwalrus (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and has WP:AISIGNS. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 21:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. The many citations are school athletics pages, databases and conference reports, not independent analysis of the rivalry itself. I found no significant secondary coverage, so WP:GNG is not met. Onatic (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Delete due to the lack of coverage from third party Independent sources calling it a rivalry. Ping me if any sources are found that show notability. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)

Pavel Hlava film

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

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

To preface this: Not strongly leaning delete, but also suggest WP:DRAFTIFY (though that may not be enough). To put it lightly, article tries to treat this film like the Zapruder film. Concerns about LLM use in its content, lacking references (among those it has, the article even cites our own Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, which is discouraged), and potentially a lot of original research and synthesis, particularly in the Film analysis section. Created by new user in August, probably should have gone through WP:AFC to incubate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Terrorism. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Keep but agree an almost total rewrite seems to be needed. // IndrasBet 「talk」 20:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 29 October 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)

Eastside Drama

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS, poor and unreliable sources, as well as likely AI written. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 29 October 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Suspected AI-generated articles, United States of America, and California. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:26, 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)

Epiphania Riris Wusananingdyah

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

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

This article about an unconfirmed Indonesian ambassador was suspected of having been LLM-generated, see Diff/1382070027, this log, and this discussion on the AI noticeboard. Even if it was not, the article does not meet our guidelines for notability. None of the references have significant coverage of the subject and they all mention the subject once except one that has two mentions of her name and quotes her twice in statements regarding Indonesian Aerospace. Many times the cited references did not provide evidence for the words that preceded them. This could be made a redirect to the list of ambassadors of Indonesia where they are mentioned. Aneirinn (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia, Politicians, and Women. Aneirinn (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Suspected AI-generated articles. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Redirect - i wholeheartedly agreed if this article is to be redirected into the list on the grounds of the lack of sources and notability Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - LLM generated article. Cannot meet GNG with this coverage. Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Herb W. Morgan

Herb W. Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and United States of America. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: unrelated to the nominator's notability concerns, this is tagged (by someone else) as including LLM text. (No opinion on either matter.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 California State Controller election per WP:BLP1E also Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. Although subject has received significant coverage as a candidate, it falls under BLP1E. If subject of this AfD is elected, redirect can be made into an article again, as subject will meet notability requirements for politician.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Keep — Independent coverage predating the 2026 election. As WP editors, we should consider Herb Morgan's professional and public-service record independently of his candidacy for California State Controller. While the concerns under Wikipedia's politician notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY) and biographies of living persons known for one event (WP:BLP) are understandable, several independent sources published well before the election warrant consideration under the General Notability Guideline.

• Voice of San Diego (2013): How a Slam-Dunk Pension Vote Fell to Pieces — Substantive reporting on Morgan's involvement in a significant pension-board decision, including his position and the resulting vote.
• Voice of San Diego (2009): Pension Scandal? San Diego Had a Pension Scandal? Who Knew… — Covers Morgan's appointment to the city's pension board and related governance issues.
• Forbes (2009): Managed ETF Portfolio Top Performers — Features Efficient Market Advisors among ranked portfolios and identifies Morgan as its manager.
• ETF.com (2015): 2015 ETF.com Awards Finalists Announced — Recognizes Efficient Market Advisors as an industry awards finalist and references Morgan's leadership.
• InvestmentNews (2010): Tax-loss overhangs allow investors to benefit from 2008 downturn — Quotes Morgan's financial-market analysis in his capacity as chief investment officer.

Collectively, these publications document his professional activities and public-service record well before his 2026 candidacy.

I believe this evidence deserves consideration under WP before redirecting the article based primarily on his political candidacy. I favor Keep, with appropriate revisions to address promotional language, sourcing deficiencies, and concerns about AI-generated content.TheDataSmith (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 California State Controller election as an WP:ATD. Among the sources listed above, only the first one is somewhat defensible, but less substantial than what we usually require from politicians to demonstrate notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Notwithstanding clause

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

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

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.

JASpencer objected 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 25 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.

JASpencer (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

Firdaws-i Bareen

Firdaws-i Bareen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 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).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

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, Salvio ^giuliano 07:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

General purpose

• Wikipedia-AI-Skills - curated skill files for AI coding agents to work on a wide variety of Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Wikidata tasks, from User:Fuzheado
• Wikipedia micro-task generator (source) - generates personalized microcontribution tasks for editors

Made by the Wikimedia Foundation:

• Meta:Machine learning models#Production models
• ProtoWiki - "An experimental collection of resources for prototyping within the Wiki ecosystem."
  • ProtoWiki Skills — "Skills for MediaWiki prototyping."
  • Wiki Skills - "A collection of skills for AI coding agents focused on Wikimedia projects."
• LiftWing/Large Language Models and LiftWing/Large Language Models/Wikimania 2026 - "The platform serves general-purpose open-weight LLMs for public use, alongside project-specific models for internal use."

Source verification

• 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.
• CiteCheck (browser extension) - sends selected text to GPT-4-turbo to suggest a citation URL for ^{[citation needed]}-tagged claims (no development since April 2024; funded via CiteCheck (WMF Rapid Fund grant))
• Wikipedia "Add a Fact" Chrome extension, from the WMF Future Audiences team. Suggests Wikipedia pages where you can add facts discovered on web pages. (~1,000 users; not updated since v0.3 in August 2024)
• Source Verification AI Assistant - a user script to help editors verify whether a reliable source supports a claim, using OpenAI models/APIs
• CNfirmed Suggests sources for {{citation needed}} tags in Wikipedia pages. (Experimental).

Proofreading / edit checking

• Lead Balancer for reviewing article leads against MOS:LEAD, and suggesting improvements to the lead by Sadads
• LLM based edit check (source) - checks edits against Wikipedia editing guidelines via LLM, by Santhosh Thottingal. Paste revision_id to check it.
• EasyPage AI (source) - converts OCR/pasted text into structured wikitext for Wikisource via OpenRouter models; UI in French
• User:Polygnotus/Scripts/AI Proofreader - use an LLM to get copyediting suggestions
• 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
• wd-vectordb - Wikidata vector database / semantic search service, part of the WMDE Wikidata Embedding Project

Wikidata / SPARQL tooling

• ProVe (GitHub) - userscript + browser gadget for checking Wikidata reference quality via LLMs, triple verbalisation, and semantic similarity (~50 installs)
• Wikidata MCP (GitHub) - Model Context Protocol server exposing SPARQL/search tools for LLM clients.
• Wikidata Textifier - turns Wikidata items into LLM-ready text
• WikiSP - fine-tuned LLaMA models translating natural-language questions into SPARQL over Wikidata
• Wembedder - Gensim CBOW/word2vec knowledge-graph embedding of Wikidata items with a "most similar" API (2021-era, still live, 51★)

Anti-vandalism / patrolling

• PatrocleBot - AI auto-reverter using WMF's ORES/revertrisk models, deployed on Romanian Wikipedia (46,345 edits, running continuously)
• SP42 - Rust-first Wikipedia patrolling workbench wired into LiftWing (alpha, 51 open issues, actively developed)
• Wikiloop DoubleCheck - edit-review/patrolling tool, community-maintained "v5" rewrite shipped March 2026
• qop - Wikidata anti-vandalism tool using a fine-tuned GPT-3.5 model (currently returns 404, appears down)
• npp-finder by whether references contain URLs, a New Page Patrol triage utility

Detection of inconsistencies and errors

• Paper: Inconsistency detection (November 2025) (code)
• Experiment: Finding errors in featured articles (December 2025)
• Experiment: Silicopedia - KilyigBot by User:Yigit Kilicoglu comments on potential contradictions and errors
• Paper: Detecting Knowledge Inconsistencies Across Text, Tables, and Knowledge Graphs (July 2026)