Chatbots (and the large language models that power them) have become very popular; they can often output material much faster than humans can. Unfortunately, they cannot write as well as humans (yet), and their output is prone to hallucinations, false citations, and other errors. This has created a major cleanup burden at Wikipedia, as many editors (especially new ones) try their hand at using artificial intelligence to edit Wikipedia. You can help by identifying AI-written text, removing unsourced or inaccurate claims, and by identifying AI-generated images. For more information, see our AI Cleanup Guide.
Speedy keep - he's a fellow of the Royal Society, so notable per WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. I don't think the text looks AI-generated, just a bit messy - there were a lot of very human errors. I've done some copy-editing and I found media coverage of his research on air flow in closed spaces which became important during the pandemic. Lijil (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar gives him h = 96; many publications with one or two authors; FRS. Clearly notable in my opinion. Athel cb (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: from looking at early efits like Diff/1358354288, it is faily obvious to me that this is a machine translation (that makes the text an LLM output these days). This isn't about notability of the subject (whom I am sure are notable with a capital-WP:N) but about the text itself. It looks like there has been some manual wikiediting going on as well. ‐‐gurkubondinn00:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but in that case, why did you only include an archived url for ref nr. 6? Also you should set url-status correctly for it. LLMs will often make this exact error, which is why I was asking. ‐‐gurkubondinn11:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I hadn't found it in the history yet. There's nothing wrong with it. in fact, you should WP:ALWAYSARCHIVE. I was just wondering why it had only been done to one of the references, but since that was done by someone else then it's not really relevant to your editing patterns. I would still set url-status=live correctly (and archive the rest of your sources as well). ‐‐gurkubondinn13:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And the new article was created based on a Google machine translation of the ff wiki, followed by post editing and improvement. That is allowed, right? Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that should be fine, provided that the requirements in WP:LLMT are met (f.ex. you aren't allowed to use machine translations of a language that you can't understand yourself). But your own translations are always going to be preferred over machine translations, though of course it often makes sense to use something like Google Translate, as an aid, in the process of translating something. After looking through the early edits to that article, I think that it looks like that's what you are doing. ‐‐gurkubondinn10:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article was moved from draftspace to mainspace bypassing AfC review process.
First two sources seem to be AI hallucinations. The rest of the sources do not show any evidence of notability. Article has evidence of COI-editing.
An employee of the person came into #en-wikipedia-help for assistance with their AI-generated edit request on the Talk page. qcne(talk)15:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an alternative to deletion to Binaytara, Binay being one of the cofounders along with Tara, his wife; that is, any notability comes through the institution, or is shared with it. It could be merge to a subsection within a new section on 'Key People' (or similar). Klbrain (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the first nomination from early last year–right after its move to mainspace, and before we fully lost our patience with LLM material, which wasn't even brought up at all that time–ended as "no consensus", and was started by what turned out to be a sock (but that wasn't discovered until months later). Since then, this was tagged as a potential GNG failure in October. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch☎✎00:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet NPROF or GNG. Oppose merging as his organization also does not seem notable at all. I wouldn't be surprised if both pages were the product of UPE. JoelleJay (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet NPROF or GNG, and refs 2 and 3 are 404s so presumably AI hallucinations - this could have been G15 instead of AfD. Lijil (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I have noticed that a newly created user has requested assistance with an AI-generated edit request on the talk page of the article Binay Shah. At this stage, I cannot determine whether the user is actually affiliated with the organization or with Binay Shah, or if they are an unrelated contributor. However, the manner in which the COI has been declared is not ideal, and this situation is concerning. Most participants currently appear to support deletion, primarily due to concerns about the reliability and strength of the available references. But some sources do indicate possible BLP notability. It may still be possible to improve the article in the future by adding stronger and more reliable sources. Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose merging to Draft:2000 Reform National Convention because the article space copy lacks citation for many of its assertion and appears potentially to be AI-suspect.
If the article space content were submitted to AFC, it would be quickly rejected
A draft is already in development. Until that draft is complete, the article space should not be occupied,.
The article space should be deleted, with anything worth saving merged to the draft
Merge Based on the draft provided merging would be sufficient. The article in question does not have much in the way of citations or linking information to help argue for its reliability or relevancyAadamentAardvark (talk)
Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Local musical educator and community conductor. All sources are primary. Independent mentions are passing. Article is AI-generated with CV-style padding. Kqol•talk23:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will review the sourcing and article structure in light of the concerns raised and make any appropriate revisions.Zingi (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this meets WP:BIO1E, as he appears to be known only for the film Aung San. I do not see evidence that he has had significant roles in other films. Htanaungg (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. The subject has only been cast in this single production and lacks the sustained, independent coverage required for a standalone biography under WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR.
Article was translated from Chinese Wikipedia. While all sources exist, more than half of the claims cited to English-language sources in the first half of the article are not supported by the cited source. (I am not able to check the non-English sources). WP:G15 was contested on the grounds that it's translation and not LLM, but I think there's good reason to believe it's translation and LLM. In any case the translation badly fails WP:LLMT. The bad sourcing is so pervasive that I don't see how the article can be saved in its current form. See the article Talk page for a detailed rundown of source and source/text issues, but note I only did the first half of the article in detail (it took several hours).
This is a painful one because the topic is unquestionably notable and important, but the sourcing is so completely corrupted that I believe it would be better to start over from scratch.
(削除) Stubify (削除ここまで)(削除) Redirect to Prince Group#Criminal charges per WP:TNT. I was writing a stub and realized the summary there is better. (削除ここまで)Stubify as already done by M kuhner. Thanks for the great talk page analysis, it looks like the references at least exist and are relevant, but are pervasively cited for information they don't contain. ~ A412talk!17:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I stubified it. I think there is scope for a full-scale article here, so stubbing seems better to me than redirect, but I would support either. M kuhner (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator here. I have converted the article to a stub. My preference would be Stubify to make it easy for someone else to develop this article. Failing that I am happy with Redirect to Prince Group#Criminal charges. I have been advised that letting this AfD run its course so we see a community consensus will make it easier to resist restoration of the LLM version. M kuhner (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD is literally pointless since even the nominator agrees the topic is unquestionably notable and important. If we think the LLM/translated content is beyond repair, then stubifying (which is still a keep) is fine. Asamboi (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not "literally pointless". This AfD is about the article itself being AI-generated, which has nothing to do with the notability of the the subject of the article. ‐‐gurkubondinn16:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's batshit stupid Wikipedia bureaucracy at its worst. Everybody involved has already decided not to delete the article, so what exactly are we debating here? Asamboi (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Policy on how to handle the deluge of LLM contributions is a relatively new and evolving area. Please have patience as editors figure out the appropriate venues for various types of problematic contributions. ~ A412talk!22:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is also gathering consensus to keep the stubified version, which is consensus against the generated text being restored by someone. ‐‐gurkubondinn01:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Different reasons for deletion are handled differently. Proposed deletion for lack of notability can be answered by showing that the subject is notable, even if sources are not currently in the article. However, proposed deletion for LLM has generally been taken to be a complaint about the article--a fatal one, if upheld--and not about the topic. It's similar to deletion because of sockpuppetry, ban evasion, or plagiarism.
Having gone through the pain of making that source/text comparison (and giving up after about 2 hours' work, only halfway through) I am strongly of the opinion that it's beyond repair. M kuhner (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Despite this page being very lengthy, most of it seems to have been AI generated, failing WP:LLM, as suspected also by an editor adding more than 8,000 bytes in one edit in February of this year. Most sources I could find outside Wikipedia on this institution were also ROUTINE Filmssssssssssss (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced AI-generated slop. Also the claim of 14 Yugoslav officers killed in one day is WP:EXTRAORDINARY and if true, should not be hard to find a source for it. Yet, I tried and couldn't. Griboski (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's different events. The Battle in Junik lasted from May-August 1998, while this supposed incident (near it) came almost another year later. --Griboski (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even a cursory glance at this article history shows no similarities with the other article, so keep due to invalid rationale. JumpytooTalk19:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. No WP:SIGCOV. The article may have been created using an LLM. No candidates have been officially declared. The article can be recreated once reliable information becomes available. Delete or draftify. QEnigma论04:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of refs is in no way a sign of LLM. The company also pretty clearly existed, so I'm not sure why you think it's a hoax. ~ A412talk!17:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per A412; it is temporally impossible for LLM to have been used on the article given that all substantial content was written before even GPT-3 came out. And from simple Googling the company blatantly exists per the numerous pictures of their buses. No comment on notability, if someone wants to bring up notability, I would suggest doing so in a new AfD. JumpytooTalk06:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a hoax, it existed[3][4][5] and predates LLM by more than a decade. This nominator has rapidly tagged numerous articles with deletion requests. DankJae11:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed. Original reason for deletion was Created by the banned user User:Someone667 with a history of creating translation of articles with LLM help. Ukrainian, Russian and Polish language version of the article already exists with no LLM usage. Also see diff by @Sddarealone; endorsed by @Bearian with the rationale Disruptive and POV editing under the guise of an article.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also I wanted to add that for the same exact user, I had previously nominated two articles which were entirely created by them using AI. The now deleted user page of that user had AI giving them suggestions as given in the above diff in my nom.
Delete per the nom, ANI thread, AINB thread, and all of the above. No prejudice against the topic itself, and no comment on the notability of the topic. --gurkubondinn02:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wiki and blogs used for sourcing, don't help. I can find some mention in publications from the 70s [6], [7], but I don't know if they relate to the subject we're discussing here or not... delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources both look unrelated. According to the article, the Lumatone keyboard was created in the 1990s, so any sources from the 1970s must be about something else with the same name. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree's references are to the brand name of a light-emitting audio signal and alarm device, hence the name Lumatone. The nominated article is about an isomorphic keyboard device which has lots of fun, programmable color options, hence the name Lumatone. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is, as the above users note, AI slop. No prejudice against an actual human-written page. It does seem to have some news coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Lumatone is a fun device, continuing a very long tradition of keyboard design. The xenharmonic folks do wonderful work, but this article isn't an example of it. It needs to be properly sourced with significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Right now, there's not a lot out there for the Lumatone. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete Sourcing of a lot of details about English in various countries to statistics pages which have no such text. It's so pervasive that getting rid of the whole thing is best. Not sure G15 applies--the references do exist--but would not oppose its use if that's consensus. M kuhner (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another case of probable LLM use contributing to a BLOWITUP. I'm disinclined to believe that South America sensu lato is the correct scope for an article along these lines. Several national-level articles or a single Latin America-wide article seem more appropriate. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The manner in which this was written and the sourcing is unacceptable I suspect that is was LLM written because the sources link take to you anything but what the author claims they are about. Even though this would be a good topic to have an article on this author nor this article should be the basis for it.AadamentAardvark (talk)
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.
Keep, probably notable for being a startup that promised housing in 2024 but still hasn't delivered in 2026. Past LLM history of the article not relevant. Felinaex(purr / pawprints)19:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find a single viable source in a search. The vast majority talk about the company in first-person: we're going to do this and that. Those are either interviews or press releases, not independent. M kuhner (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated from first revision. e.g. the statement "The Italian Geological Society now highlight Villaggio del Pescatore as the key dinosaur‐bearing locality of the Trieste Karst" is not supported by the source. There's a lot of LLM-esque promotional wording such as "underscores" and "widely recognized". So basically delete per WP:NOLLM. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lipica Formation, the locality is documented as a paragraph there, as the locality is an outcrop of said formation what can be said about the locality is better but in the article in the formation. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GPT Zero rates this as 100% AI written. While GPT Zero is not infallible, a 100% AI rating is usually a very strong indication that AI was involved in some manner. - UtherSRG(talk)14:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no significant evidence the article has been LLM generated. Please remember that mere stylistic signs are not reliable evidence of LLM text. I am Italian and if anything the text seems instead to be written by a native Italian speaker; see expressions such as "uncertain collocation", "contributing to debates" or "These represent the first late Cretaceous records" that are slightly awkward Italian calques, that would be unexpected in an English text produced by a LLM. That said, site is a massively notable lagerstätte discussed in several academic sources already present in the article, see [8], [9], plus other Italian language sources such as [10], [11], [12]. If someone needs an expert revision of the article, I know first hand some of the researchers involved. --cyclopiaspeak!13:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read my nomination statement thoroughly you would have seen that I did not rely on "stylistic factors" only. But if you need more convincing, here's other indicators of AI use, including what I already wrote above about the "key dinosaur-bearing locality", because you've ignored it.
Recent authors emphasize the need for continued protection and promotion of Villaggio del Pescatore as a unique geosite of international value[3][4]. Neither refs 3 nor 4 support this claim.
Villaggio del Pescatore's best‐known fossil is the hadrosauroid Tethyshadros insularis, represented by exceptionally complete, articulated skeletons.[1][5] Ref 1 does not support "exceptionally complete, articulated skeletons"
The Italian Geological Society now highlight Villaggio del Pescatore as the key dinosaur‐bearing locality of the Trieste Karst[4]. Not supported by source.
These 3 examples alone are evidence enough of AI use, as they contain evident LLM verification failures and synthesis of published sources. That's just a sample; there is more problematic content in the article than I have time to list. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 14:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that people didn't put references that happened to not support a claim before LLM? I'm here on WP since 2005, I guarantee that has always been pretty common. cyclopiaspeak!08:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Viceversa, I find it utterly implausible that a LLM would output text with awkward calques typical of Italian speakers of English. cyclopiaspeak!08:45, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Calques" are a stylistic sign, which are ineffective indicators of whether text is AI-generated or not. So, the wording does not matter even if you believe it has "awkward calques". --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 12:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stylistic signs are however exactly what you presented in the nom: There's a lot of LLM-esque promotional wording such as "underscores" and "widely recognized". So basically delete per WP:NOLLM. your words, not mine. And yes, I agree very much, usually they're not an effective indicator, and that many editors here rely on subjective clues to denounce a text as LLM-generated is concerning. However LLMs are trained to output text that looks grammatically and syntactically correct. They do make mistakes even there sometimes, but it's pretty implausible that coincidentally an LLM decides to use awkward Italian-like constructions (as an Italian editor who uses LLMs often for tasks unrelated to wikipedia, I've never seen it happening). This is indeed evidence that such a text, most likely, has not been generated by a LLM, while we have no good evidence that it has been. cyclopiaspeak!11:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have doubts you really checked the sources for the claims.
1. Ref 3 says right at the start "The Villaggio del Pescatore Lagerstätte (VdP hereafter), located in the municipality of Duino-Aurisina, Trieste (NE Italy), is a world-renown paleontological site due to its well-preserved Cretaceous vertebrate remains, standing out in the European palaeontological landscape" - so it supports the claim partially. Ref 4 doesn't, but it stresses the importance of the VdP fossils, and as such an inexperienced editor could have easily added it to strengthen the claim (see point 3 below)
2. Ref 1 describes multiple articulated T. insularis fossils, while Ref 5 describes it as "One of the most complete dinosaur fossil ever found". Yes, there is a bit of puffery/synthesis, but nothing unusual from an unexperienced editor.
3. I agree that the sentence is not fully supported by Ref 4. However, the reference states "The fossils collection is mainly representative of the Karst and Istria areas, and it is subdivided into historical collections and more recently acquired specimens. The most important collection is certainly represented by the Cretaceous fossils from the Villaggio del Pescatore site" - As such, again, it is a reasonable deduction from an inexperienced editor. It is also, incidentally, true: it is likely that the editor looked for a source that could somehow support what they knew to be a correct claim. Heck, I've been guilty of such clumsy editing when I started editing WP twenty-something years ago. That seems much more the output of an overenthusiastic but rookie WP editor than LLM hallucination. cyclopiaspeak!09:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is an important one with lots of technical language. It is true that some of the references do not reflect the statements made. As a test I asked AI to write an Wikipedia article on this subject and what it came up with was totally different from what is written here and without most of these technical references. The ones it did quote are not used in this article. Thus I am not sure that LLM applies. I suggest keeping the article with a request that it be significantly edited. lynngol
Keep per Cyclopia's accurate analysis above, there's no way an LLM would produce an article in a rotten English plenty of Italicisms. Cavarrone09:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence whatsoever that article has been written by LLM (it seems to me a very normal stub); there are external journalistic sources so it seems to meet WP:GNG somehow. --cyclopiaspeak!12:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
Which elements failed verification in the nomination diff? User:Euphomedia has been making edits to clean up some of the issues, and I corrected a typo. The newspapers seem reliable, as they have editors, but I can't verify the podcast. SenshiSun (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank podcast is an external or extension link of the Radio interview for a book review that the author had with a prominent radio station in South Africa Ikwekwezi Fm. It is part of the SABC News. Euphomedia (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I couldn't see that right away. All three sources look valid now.
Comment Are we seriously believing that v1 is not LLM generated? NBOOK requires substantial reviews. The reviews are not substantial. Fermiboson (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That version is quite obviously LLM generated, as it is full of LLM formatting and weird text. LLM articles have been saved in the past with significant rewrites. When I checked the version available to me at the time, the only thing that failed verification was a typo. I will double-check the reviews for how substantial they are.
Personally, I would not be interested in taking advice about making the most of my 20s from someone who's only 23, but that doesn't factor into my editorial decision. SenshiSun (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first two articles are detailed, as they discuss the book, its author, and its target market. Neither offer any criticism or questions. I can't check the third one right now because it's a podcast. I will try to listen to it later. I will see if this has any public press releases with similar content to the articles. SenshiSun (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Issues present on v1 (and there were many) aren't what this discussion is for, the important thing here is the current revision. All LLM issues seem to have been suitably solved by the re-writes done by others and everything passes verification Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reviews which are on the article show that it (albeit narrowly) meets WP:NBOOK. The reviews go into enough depth. The article seems to have started out as LLM-generated, but the current revision is perfectly fine. It is a bare-bones stub with every detail cited to a source. It has been re-written enough that deletion as a WP:LLM violation would be counter-productive. The ways we deal with LLM-generated content is either removal or a re-write, and the re-write has done enough to address any issues LLMs may have caused. Issues present on v1 aren't relevant since this discussion is about whether to keep the current revision. Lovelyfurball (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD was replaced by materially better article but there is still not enough to establish notability. AR/12News only cite the school district in the context of other Maricopa Co districts and even then, only as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Other sources do not assert notability. In contest of prod, author cites nonexistent WP:NGOVT policy, which makes me wonder if AI was used. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. The article meets WP:NORG through independent, subject-specific coverage. The nomination appears to discount the sources too broadly as routine coverage.
Policy frame: For a school district, the relevant standard is WP:NORG/WP:CORPDEPTH, not the notability guidance for individual schools. The question is whether reliable independent sources address the district directly and in some depth.
Sources analysis:
Arizona Auditor General, Arlington Elementary School District Performance Audit (2016) — an independent state audit report devoted entirely to this district. It discusses district operations, finances, transportation, food service, and administration in substantial detail, constituting significant coverage rather than a directory-style mention.
The Arizona Republic (Alltucker, Oct 2025) — covers the district's specific test-score outcomes, not merely the district's existence.
12News (Nov 2025) — covers the district's successful 15% M&O override vote with attribution from election results. This is independent local news coverage of a district-specific funding issue.
Calling all county-frame coverage "routine" reads WP:CORPDEPTH too narrowly. These are not mere listings or passing mentions; the sources address the district directly.
On the authorship speculation:WP:NGOVT was simply a mistaken shortcut on my part, acknowledged on my talk page. A typo is not evidence of LLM-generated content. Per WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, the discussion should focus on the article's sourcing and notability rather than speculation about authorship. Sparks19923 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was an LLM used to generate this response? Plain clear answer please.
Audits of a school district strike me as extremely routine. Essentially all school districts do them--it's a legal requirement in many places. This does nothing to demonstrate notability.
The test score article mentions Arlington once, in one sentence. This is not substantial. In fact "mere listings or passing mentions" is an extremely good description of this source.
Delete as notability is not shown, and I don't think it can be. Also, contrary to post above, "is it LLM" is a legitimate question (otherwise our new LLM policy could never be enforced) and I think the answer is fairly clear. M kuhner (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NSCHOOL, NORG and\or GNG. Reverting to a previous (non-LLM-generated) version, even keeping current sources, does not present multiple significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.
Page on an Italian-French scientist which fails notability and had masses of fake claims indicating AI hallucinations or worse. After checking sources, I removed 10 of 15 which either did not exist, were irrelevant or routine. These included a claim that he was nominated as a knight in both France and Italy. There were other invalid claims such as that he is a full professor. Going beyond this his h-factor is 45 with 12K cites, but he is one of many on most of them. The only partial exception are two from his PhD in 2015 & 2017 where he is first author. However, his citations/year have started to drop which is not good. Clear fail of WP:NPROF, no WP:SIGCOV after removal of inappropriate claims. Page was PROD'd by Jimjamjoe5 due to lack of academic notability, which was reverted by Cyclopia with a tag of possible vandalism, I guess the sources were not checked. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Decent citations, but is listed along with many other co-authors in most/all of the papers in Gscholar. The AI slop is a huge red flag that this is PROMO. I don't see a pass at PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it's (all) AI slop. The article was created back in 2015, and most of the article's content including the claim he was knighted was already in place by August 2022 [14], before the widespread availability of AI text generation ushered in by ChatGPT in November 2022 (indeed, the knighting claim has been in the article since 2017 [15]). This may just be old-skool fake citations by one of the IP authors of the article, which is still absolutely a red flag that the article has likely been edited for promotional purposes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the page, I think your interventions really helped in making the tone more neutral. Maybe some AI has been used to rephrase somesentences over the years, but the page was created as said by @Hemiauchenia a decade ago. I could help in cross-checking some information ensuring notability.I added the reference to the "full professor habilitation" status that was claimed in the page - it is easy to verify this information on Italian Public Government open access decisions - but it was removed mentioning "Both peacock and inappropriate citation. Only academics who have a full professor position qualify". In reality, in Europe (especially in France and Italy), the habilitation to full professor is provided after an examination - which does not mean that you need to be necessarily to work as full professor at University. It is the case of many scientists working for public facilities (e.g. synchrotrons) - they can have this "habilitation" (e.g. allowing them to independently supervise PhDs, for example) but not necessarily working for a University as full professor.Google Scholar also presents the profile with an H-Index of 45 and a 11296 citations (which is very high in terms of performance and scientific impact, and is the strongest metrics for a scientific profile of this kind) and publications appear to be on major journals, such as Nature and JACS - however, Google Scholar sometimes "amplifies" KPIs. It will be better to cross-check this information with more reliable sources, for example with Scopus. Riceboxpoulet (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we also consider a comparative approach with other scientific profiles - considering the specificity of this field, it would help. I was looking at Sophie Carenco’s wiky page (e.g. similar employer, similar research topics...) and her metrics are much lower (e.g. ~4030 citations, 40 H-Index). We have to find a way to ensure consistency Riceboxpoulet (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page was published in 2015, which also explains why some references/links expired. Tone needs to be improved. Checked citations, beyond Google Scholar (which gives amplified metrics) and the trend/citations are increasing. Added few elements on the research field to outline scientific relevance/contribution (e.g. highly cited in literature for innovating XAFS field, non-precious material catalysis, etc...). Checked that he is Chevalier de l’Ordre de la Palme Academique in France (possible to write to education.gov.fr - these elements are easy to cross-check). Receiving the highest honour in Italy (Order of Merit of the Italian Republic) and a major academic honour in France (Ordre des Palmes académiques) show impact/recognition/notability. Some expressions in the text are a bit odd / non-native speakers contributions. Not found reference online about the topic of the PhD/exact title - What is reported as PhD title, looks more a scientific article title. Maybe we should remove the title?
Keep, revert the AI-generated edits and move on. (削除) Also revert the pre-November 2022 edits about knighthood, (削除ここまで) seems more like a gorilla case or just plain old promo. --gurkubondinn10:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the knighthood seems to check out, insofar that it happened. Lacks secondary source though, but it is not a hallucination. --gurkubondinn11:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure why this was reverted as "inappropriate citation": Diff/1356682108. It was obviously retrieved by ChatGPT, and these were bare url references, but as far as I can tell, they do support the claims that were sourced to them.
But the other source, some sort of a list of candidates, is something that I agree borders on being PEACOCK in the context that it was used. It can be used as a source for something else, but it's sort of pointlessly promotional to say that he "qualifies" as something he (presumably) currently isn't working as. Lost of people quality for lots of things.
I don't speak Italian though, so I'm relying on Google Translate and I might have missed something. These are also obviously primary sources (and BLPPRIMARY), but I'm not sure that it is correct to say that these are "inappropriate citations", even though proper SECONDARY sources would obviously be preferred. An Italian speaker would probably have better luck than me in digging up a SECONDARY source on this. --gurkubondinn11:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of his hundred or so publications with 2 or more citations, just one has just two authors (and has 16 citations), and there is no single-author publication that I've found. I find it hard to regard him as individually notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional i.e. non-neutral content, unsourced false content which is not supported by historical sources at all and is most supported by local subcontinental family tradition, not encyclopedic at all, seems to be the view points of an editor who presumably is related to the subject and has expressed their own emotions when their claim has been refuted on this article itself, and details of the actual Quraysh tribe are already it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Budhi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, Qureshi is a surname, and Wikipedia contains numerous biographies of people with the name. On the other hand, there does seem to be a fair amount of non-neutral commentary in the article history. A proper surname page is warranted, but I'll leave it to others to determine if that can be done through regular editing, or if it requires TNT. Cnilep (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a surname. I've added a ref from the OUP's Dictionary of American Family Names. Note that there exists List of people with surname Qureshi. If there is very little sourced content about the name itself, it would be sensible to merge that list into this page - it's a common format, and means that the reader looking for a particular person of whom they only know the surname will have one less click to make. If there are content disputes about the article, those should be resolved on its talk page, not at AfD. PamD13:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that the list should be merged (back) into the name article, so we end up with it all at Qureshi rather than "List of ..."? So it's really "Keep and merge the list into the name page". PamD16:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#Potential LLM generations by Input Zoom, these are WP:LLM articles consisting of entirely AI-generated content not verified by a human. Unlike some of Input Zoom's articles, these have not been significantly cleaned-up by other editors, meaning the issues persist. I'm requesting drafifying these articles until they can be cleaned up, or at worst a WP:TNT deletion. I also nominate the following Polish places and transportation articles with the same concerns:
Support but keep Wrocław Świebodzki–Zgorzelec railway: Johnson524, first of all, did you not bother checking the Page Statistics or even the page history to see that I have contributed to that article? So you should notify me about these nominations, or at least even just send a message on WikiProject Poland about this. To be fair you did add it to the article alerts of WP PL, but this occasion happened to be my first time checking the article alerts page. This exact article has already been previously drafted but I specifically asked it to not be drafted (1, 2) as I began adding to it, and cleaning it up. I will also go back once again to the article to add more to it, so please do not delete it. I removed reverted the notice on the article. Fortek67 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course I checked. You've not edited the article for almost two months so I did not think to ping you, and while I appreciate you removing the route map and cleaning up the infobox and wikilinks, the actual prose of the article remains very similar to the AI-version created by Input Zoom, which still likely includes hallucinations. This isn't deletion, just draftication, and I still believe that remains justified until the prose can be verified. You clearly care about the article though which is what ultimately matters if the articles ever getting fixed, so I'll strike this page. Johnson52416:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many citations, but none of them are independent of the subject of the article. I've searched for better cites, but all I'm finding is press releases or reposts of press releases. This doesn't meet either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG and so should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found this in the AfD queue. The sourcing concern is addressable. Education Week covered IMS Global directly and independently: Benjamin Herold reported on the OneRoster standard in January 2016 and on the Ed-Fi/IMS collaboration in February 2016; Michelle R. Davis covered districts requiring IMS certification as a procurement condition in March 2018. These are bylined news articles in a major education trade publication, not press releases. I've added those cites to the article. The organization also appears in the 1998 Wired article already cited. That's three independent sources with named authors covering the organization's standards work — enough for WP:NCORP. I'm also working on a rewrite of the prose. Sparks19923 (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI Source Verification - Userscript that uses open-source models (Free!), Claude, Gemini (Free!) or ChatGPT to help check if a source supports a claim.
CitationVerification - Python script that uses MiniCheck and Claude to check if a source supports a claim.
Shoe company Allbirds announces it will be pivoting to providing computing infrastructure for artificial intelligence, with plans to rename itself to "NewBird AI". The company's shares rose nearly 600% on the news. (CNBC)
