No indication of lasting notability. Trump has held other rallies and made more controversial remarks; articles weren't warranted then and one for this rally does not appear to be warranted now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)17:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with this. Certainly should at least not survive this AfD, I just think deleting per se would cause lots of link-breaks across the >500 pages that link there. Okkirae∤(䆿±䋚) 15:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC: the cited sources are a passing mention in a textbook, a blog, a regional article mentioning him only incidentally and a non-independent profile, and a WP:BEFORE search found only database entries. Moarnighar (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, in addition to the notability issues this probably fails NOLLM as well. It's more clearly seen in the userspace sandbox page where it was put together before being copied into article space. The references that was added in Diff/1378660096 returns a 404 not found error, and that URL has never been saved on archive.org. The Kenton Hall page was also put together on the same sandbox draft page, and WP:STARTSPAN markup from Gemini was added in Diff/1378434241 the same day. ‑‑gurkubondinn09:12, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: even at best, this would appear to be the same subject as the first nomination from 2020 that ended in deletion (and that iteration wouldn't have had LLM issues at all). No opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎23:33, 7 October 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.
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 – two Guardian features, three BBC reports including one on the sport being prescribed on the NHS, a university study and written evidence to a parliamentary committee. Drafting style is a cleanup question, not a notability one (WP:ATD). Kukuryza (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: unrelated to the nominator's concerns, this has (when not blanked and redirected) been tagged as containing LLM text since August. (The page itself has existed in some form since 2012, so there are definitely non-LLM revisions, but it probably doesn't help the cause any.) No opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎03:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: At minimum, the promotional VR1 Media, Acting by Sarfraz and Care Shield sections should probably all be deleted; I am leaving them in place during this discussion though. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak delete or Redirect to Kader Khan. Notability is borderline with unreliable sources. He could possibly meet WP:NACTOR but it is unclear if he has had leading roles. Most of the content, including early life, education, and later career, is unsourced, and the sections on VR1 Media, Acting by Sarfraz, and Care Shield are promotional. If kept, it needs substantial work. Macdddd (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Apart from obvious LLM written text. His work is not notable enough to meet WP:NACTOR moreover it should not be redirected to his father's page as notability is not guaranteed by association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz5t 8O12 (talk • contribs)
Despite being WP:REFBOMBed, this British law firm does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP. Across 72 sources, there is not a single one that shows WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Instead, the sources are:
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in coverage of other topics (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , )
Non-independent writings by the firm's personnel (, , )
The firm's own website (, , )
Sources that don't mention the subject (, , , , , , )
The best source is this one, but the company still only gets a few mentions in a much longer article and I don't think it's even close to SIGCOV. There's so much reliance on primary sources and sources that don't mention the subject that I consider this to be a piece of original research and thus fails both WP:NCORPand the WP:NOT test. And while I don't detect strong WP:AISIGNS, earlier versions included dead links in sources that were dead at the time of publishing, and the page creator acknowledged using AI to format citations, so it's possible there is a need to look for AI-related issues as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I created the article, and I accept that it is over-referenced and that a fair number of the citations do not establish notability. Some of the primary sources, directories, personnel announcements and passing mentions could probably be removed.
I don't agree, though, that there is no significant independent coverage.
The 2014 Guardian article is the clearest example. It discusses TV Edwards' finances, staffing changes, salary reductions, use of paralegals and its response to legal-aid cuts. That seems to go well beyond a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NCORP says significant coverage can consist of "description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation", and also specifically says that the organisation does not have to be the main topic of the source.
I also don't think all of the specialist legal press can simply be excluded as WP:TRADES. NCORP does create a presumption against trade publications, but it also expressly says that feature stories from leading trade publications may be used where independence is clear. I agree that routine merger and appointment stories don't establish notability, but independently reported features should be considered individually.
On the primary-source point, I don't think their use makes the article WP:OR. WP:PRIMARY allows primary sources for straightforward descriptive facts. If I have used any of them to draw conclusions that the sources themselves don't make, I am happy for that material to be removed.
The same applies to the AI concern. I did use AI to help format some citations. If there are any citation errors, unsupported statements or other problems, I am happy to correct them. But that seems separate from whether the subject satisfies NCORP.
I agree the article can be tightened considerably, and I am happy to do that. I just don't think the available sourcing supports the conclusion that the firm has received no significant independent coverage. Keep and improve. Critical Hippo (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
‘’‘Keep.’’’
I agree with the Article creator. The Guardian piece alone appears to provide substantive, independent discussion of the firm rather than a passing mention, and the specialist press sources should be assessed individually rather than dismissed wholly as trade coverage. The article clearly needs pruning, but that is a cleanup issue, not in itself a reason for deletion. On balance, I think there is enough here to satisfy WP:NCORP, particularly when the stronger sources are considered together.
You're Correct that this is the first activity on this account, that's because I rarely use Wikipedia these days, and I lost the password to my old, primary account. In regards to AI, i can barely use Wikipedia any more, let alone ChatGPT or what have you.
I can barely remember to put my dentures on in the morning. Do you think I can remember the name of an account from like several years ago? NimbNimb (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it is rather unusual that someone who can barely remember to put dentures on in the morning suddenly arrived at a deletion discussion with a determination to participate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe the article meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG). The nomination argues that "death literacy" is a non-notable neologism not in public parlance. However, the GNG is based on whether a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, rather than on whether it is a common term in everyday language.
Independent media coverage:
The article now cites substantial media coverage of death literacy from multiple independent sources:
The Guardian (2016) discussed "death literacy" in an article about end-of-life conversations.
The Saturday Paper (2017) published an article specifically about death literacy and dying at home.
ABC News (2017) covered the concept in connection with Dying to Know Day, and in 2019 reported on an ACT inquiry that identified a need for improved death literacy and discussed Death Cafés as one response.
The Irish News (2025) reported on research examining death literacy across Ireland.
The Belfast Telegraph (2025) reported on the findings of that research, including differences in death literacy between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The New Indian Express (2026) discussed death literacy in the context of end-of-life decision-making.
These are independent media sources, published over a period of ten years and across several countries. They demonstrate that the concept has received coverage beyond the original researchers and their publications.
International academic adoption:
The concept has also been taken up by researchers internationally. The Death Literacy Index has been adapted and validated in Turkey and Sweden, and used in population studies in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Singapore. A 2026 paper describes death literacy as an emerging research area and examines its use in policy and practice.
GNG:
The relevant question is therefore not whether "death literacy" is a term in common public parlance, but whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I believe the body of independent media coverage now cited in the article demonstrates that it has, and I have added these sources to the article.
Stubification is fine, but someone should do it first. There is an obvious tension with WP:ATD-E, but WP:NEWLLM enjoys community support both in terms of wording and practice, and is more specific. Another practical issue is that unless the article is made compliant now, it won't be made compliant in the near future (yes, WP:NODEADLINE, but everything has a deadline). Kelob2678 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I would do it, but the last time I performed stubification during an AfD, it wasn't taken well. I would commit to stubifying following the result of the AfD.
The editing policy (which takes precedence over the NOLLM guideline? states that editors should Fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. Removing all the content but even just one or two sentences from the lead (rewritten if necessary) would remove all problematic AI generated content and would address all relevant reasons for deletion. The deletion policy (specifically WP:ATD) says If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. There is no rationale for why deleting the article is preferable to stubifying it - a notable topic would belong in a finished encyclopedia, so PRESERVE mandates that we keep it in some form. Katzrockso (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If you rewrite the article, I will change my vote. Actual community practice is more important than the text of policies and guidelines. It is clear that the community wants articles like this to be deleted, and I see no reason to dissent. If consensus were different, I would vote differently. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Regarding the last time I performed stubification during an AfD, it wasn't taken well, I recall this ANI thread (from WP:ARBDEL) in which the policy-compliant phrase (per WP:OVERCOME and WP:NEXIST) Article improvement is *not* a proper response in the middle of an AfD where the article is essentially rewritten and materially different was criticized. In this case, article improvement actually addresses the underlying issue. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep but stubify to remove NOLLM violations. Quick search on Google scholar found at least ten papers which primarily address this as the subject Katzrockso (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The argument that the subject is not in the public parlance is irrelevant - Wikipedia covers topics of both specialist and general interest. There is no requirement in the GNG that a term needs to be known to the general public, only that reliable sources cover the subject. In this case, there are a number of reliable sources, even if those are specialist. Katzrockso (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article is not the original draft that was previously declined at AfC. Following that review, I substantially rewrote the article from the cited sources. The present version is a new, source-based draft. Since this discussion began, I have continued to edit the article to improve accuracy and clarity, including:
- Correcting the description of the Irish research (the DLI was adapted for use in Ireland, not used in a population study).
- Refining the wording of the research findings so they accurately reflect the published, cited paper.
- Clarifying the description of the media sources.
I therefore do not think the existence of the earlier draft establishes that the current article is AI-generated. The article has been substantially rewritten and continues to be improved. I welcome further discussion ~~~~ Karenthecelebrant (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep in trusting that @Karenthecelebrant is telling the truth here. It doesn't read like an LLM, and the sourcing is broad and of great enough import to justify retainment notwithstanding.
Delete - coverage via reliable sources appears to be trivial. Term itself appears to not be significantly covered besides a few sentence mentions. Might be a better fit in Wiktionary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate the comment. I don't believe the sources cited are merely trivial mentions of the term.
Several of the independent media sources give death literacy substantial coverage as a subject in its own right. The Guardian published a dedicated article titled "Festival of dying: is your 'death literacy' lacking?", which discusses the concept in the context of preparation for death and developing practical knowledge around death and dying. The Saturday Paper published "Death literacy and dying at home", which examines the concept in the context of end-of-life planning and dying at home. The Irish News likewise published a dedicated article about a Queen's University study examining death literacy across Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph subsequently reported on the findings of that study. The New Indian Express also discusses death literacy in the context of end-of-life decision-making.
There is also scholarly discussion of the concept itself. Rogerson et al. (2026) specifically examine "death literacy: tensions between theory and practice" and describe it as an emerging research area.
The sources therefore include both independent media coverage specifically focused on death literacy and scholarly work examining the concept itself. I believe this goes beyond passing or trivial mentions and provides significant coverage of the subject under the GNG. I therefore believe the article meets the General Notability Guideline and should be kept. Karenthecelebrant (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Further to the above, I have since identified additional independent media coverage published in 2025 and 2026. The Hindustan Times, The Hindu and The Week all discussed the concept of death literacy and its role in planning for end-of-life in their coverage of India's first Death Literacy Festival. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post subsequently reported on death literacy in relation to end-of-life preparation, advance directives and living funerals, including findings from a 2025 study of death literacy among Hong Kong residents.
These sources, which I have added to the article, provide further examples of substantive discussion of death literacy itself, rather than merely passing references to the term. Karenthecelebrant (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - The phenomenon seems notable with sources such as 1 covering it but the page is unscientifically return and definitely needs to be rewritten. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:@Karenthecelebrant: if you continue using LLM to polish your responses in this discussion, they'll be discarded. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎12:46, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This does not mean that they will necessarily be disregarded. It means that AI polished wording has been removed from view unless "shown" until the eventual closer assesses what the consensus is and whether they are to be considered useful by them. 🇵🇸🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalktome🇺🇦🇵🇸 17:43, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – the Death Literacy Index has been validated in peer-reviewed journals in Sweden, Turkey, Ireland and Singapore, and the concept is covered by the Guardian, the South China Morning Post, Channel News Asia and The Hindu. That is not a neologism without currency. Kukuryza (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Another article in a series of 'Adoption of the euro in ...' by the same author (now blocked). All articles use the same template, which looks to be generated by an AI. Vgbypw (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Another article in a series of 'Adoption of the euro in ...' by the same author (now blocked). All articles use the same template, which looks to be generated by an AI. Vgbypw (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose redirecting to Saturno (album) because, aside from the fact that the article is AI-generated, it does not meet WP:GNG or the higher standards of WP:NSONG. the only time people have talked about it is when reviewing the album, or when its music video released, and I don't think the best source on that is SIGCOV 1brianm7 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I respectfully contest the deletion nomination for Gowri Savithri. The subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:AUTHOR through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources:
1. Modeling – National & International coverage:
- BBC News (2016) – "India's transgender sari models winning hearts" – independent feature on subject as part of Mazhavil/Red Lotus campaign.
- NDTV (2016) – "These Pics of Transgender Models in Saris Are Now Viral"
- The Times of India (2016) – "This designer's transgender models are winning hearts"
- The Week, The News Minute (2016) – coverage of same campaign
2. Historic advertising milestone:
- The Quint (25 April 2018) – "#GoodNews: Kerala Brand Features Trans Model in Sari Ad" – about Karalkada billboard at Swaraj Round, Thrissur
- The Asian Age (30 April 2018) – "Gender, no bar in modeling"
- The Times of India (23 April 2018) – "It's a model worth emulating"
Subject was noted as first transgender model in 163-year history of Karalkada brand and one of first trans models on a large billboard in Kerala.
3. Film career:
- The New Indian Express (7 Aug 2021) – "Queer drama Pixelia lands on Neestream"
- The Times of India (5 Nov 2018) – confirms Pixelia selection for Indian Competition at 24th Kolkata International Film Festival (KIFF)
4. Author – WP:AUTHOR:
- Gowreepadham (2024) memoir published – covered by Manorama Music album and media.
- The Last Piece of Banana Chips (2026) novel published by DC Books – covered by Kerala Kaumudi (25 Sept 2026).
The Mathrubhumi Diary of a Transgender Model column written BY the subject herself is a primary source and I agree it should NOT be used to establish notability per WP:PRIMARY. I am citing it only as an external link, not as a notability source. The notability is established by the independent sources above.
Delete, low notability per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR and WP:AUTHOR. In the sources cited which can be considered reliable (BBC, Manorama, etc) it's either passing mentions in articles about transgender modelling, or interviews. In an online search I can't find significant reliable, secondary coverage of her, just more like what's already cited in the article. Note that in English and in Google Translate her given name is often transliterated as "Gowri", and her surname as "Savithri". User:Thilsebatti above is probably right about the UPE. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello editors,
I respectfully contest the deletion nomination for Gowri Savithri. The subject meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:AUTHOR through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources:
1. Modeling – National & International coverage:
- BBC News (2016) – "India's transgender sari models winning hearts" – independent feature on subject as part of Mazhavil/Red Lotus campaign.
- NDTV (2016) – "These Pics of Transgender Models in Saris Are Now Viral"
- The Times of India (2016) – "This designer's transgender models are winning hearts"
- The Week, The News Minute (2016) – coverage of same campaign
2. Historic advertising milestone:
- The Quint (25 April 2018) – "#GoodNews: Kerala Brand Features Trans Model in Sari Ad" – about Karalkada billboard at Swaraj Round, Thrissur
- The Asian Age (30 April 2018) – "Gender, no bar in modeling"
- The Times of India (23 April 2018) – "It's a model worth emulating"
Subject was noted as first transgender model in 163-year history of Karalkada brand and one of first trans models on a large billboard in Kerala.
3. Film career:
- The New Indian Express (7 Aug 2021) – "Queer drama Pixelia lands on Neestream"
- The Times of India (5 Nov 2018) – confirms Pixelia selection for Indian Competition at 24th Kolkata International Film Festival (KIFF)
4. Author – WP:AUTHOR:
- Gowreepadham (2024) memoir published – covered by Manorama Music album and media.
- The Last Piece of Banana Chips (2026) novel published by DC Books – covered by Kerala Kaumudi (25 Sept 2026).
The Mathrubhumi Diary of a Transgender Model column written BY the subject herself is a primary source and I agree it should NOT be used to establish notability per WP:PRIMARY. I am citing it only as an external link, not as a notability source. The notability is established by the independent sources above.
The article I created has been challenged several times so far, and this is the second time you have nominated it for deletion. I have already explained that I did not use AI to generate the article, yet the suspicion about AI use continues to be raised.
I would like to clarify once again that I used translation tools to help write the article; I did not use AI to generate it.
I have said several times that I am a Persian speaker and that I am not fluent in English.
If there are particular words or phrases in the article that make it appear AI-generated to you, wouldn't it be more helpful to simply point them out and help correct or improve them?
Wouldn't that be more productive than repeatedly nominating the article for deletion based on a suspicion about how it was written?
I am willing to correct any awkward wording, translation issues, unsupported statements, or other problems in the article.
If you believe the article violates a specific Wikipedia policy, please identify the specific policy and the specific content that you believe violates it, rather than speculating about whether AI was used.
I would much rather work with you to improve the article than have it repeatedly nominated for deletion based on an assumption that I have already explained is incorrect.
ایران 1405 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: per WP:TNT and WP:NOLLM. In addition to featuring signs of AI composition, the article also has numerous sources that don't support the claims that are used. For example, 8 and 9 say nothing about brine or lithium, 7 says nothing about the playa being a national heritage site or being part of the tourism group (it mentions Bajestan, not the playa). 5 uses stock photos of other deserts (one of them is from a different part of Iran) and is a completely garbage source. I've now spent more time on this article than the creator did in asking whatever LLM to generate it, so I'll stop, but there's nothing verifiable to redeem here and if we are to have an article on this subject, it needs a complete restart from scratch. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose merging, or redirecting to Symbiosis. This page seems largely AI generated (bulleted points, referencing Wikipedia itself) - GPTZero believes the final paragraph alone is 100% AI, which does not surprise me.
The topic which it covers would easily be covered by the subject of 'Interspecific interactions', which is a redirect to Symbiosis. Sevenstxrsquid🌊06:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete:Symbiosis already covers the topic better than this; if the article is indeed WP:LLM-generated then it could actually be speedy-deleted. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging, and the title is long and wobbly, not an ideal search term (but I wouldn't oppose a delete-then-redirect if that's what folks want: we certainly don't want to preserve the text for future resurrections). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Having read the symbiosis article, it is clear to me that they have very little in common. However, I take your point on the wobbliness of the title. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I reacted too quickly. The articles do have a lot in common. I take your point. Probably if I had read this article I would not have written Interspecific interactions. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
PS. This article started out with the title ‘Pet keeping by animals’. As I got into the subject, matter I decided I didn’t like that angle, so I repositioned in a way that resulted in more overlap with Symbiosis. The overlap is not complete (eg. the Symbiosis article doesn’t discuss play, the second most important interaction for primates. Also, I didn’t see any discussion of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, the overlap is considerable. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
OPPOSE: I am having second thoughts about overlap with Symbiosis, though I do not deny that such overlap exists — overlapping is not the same thing as redundant. The approach of symbiosis article is to list the different types of symbiosis and then to provide relatively simple examples (lichens, fungus, seed dispersal, mites, etc.). This is useful from a pedagogical standpoint, but it hides the complexities of ‘higher’ social animals such as primates. The Interspecific social interactions article describes primate behaviors such play, caregiving, carrying, affiliative behaviour (such as grooming which is not covered in the same way in the Symbiosis article’s section on cleaning symbiosis). Ultimately, the understanding of how these behaviors are anchored in the concepts of evolutionary biology will be elucidated, but it is a bit early to assert, given the present state of knowledge, that they can all be reduced to symbiosis. For this reason, I have revised the article to focus only on primates. The title of the article has been changed accordingly. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I will describe my procedure in writing this article and let the Wikipedia community decide if it is Kosher. The article did originate from an AI-assisted draft, but I subsequent researched, expanded and sourced it. This process started out with me finding all of the fifteen references, all of which I read. I then substantially rewrote the text. I would estimate that I changed about half the words of the original draft (I did a rough text comparison). All the section titles are mine as are the bullet points (sorry GPTZERO, but you’re wrong!). The Wikipedia article cited at the top of the references section is to give credit for o the authors of the alloparenting article. This revision process took many hours and I now regard it as a team effort between me and ChatGPT. I stand by every word in this article — it contains no hallucinations. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge with Interspecies friendship. I think there could be discussion on the best name to use (and the section about humans' pets should be removed), but the subjects of these two articles seem to be closely related. These are not at all the same as symbiosis, which is a long-term relationship associated with evolution. Reywas92Talk18:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: the article creator already mentioned that they moved it to Interspecific social behaviour in primates. I reiterate this in a bolded comment in part to formally link to the new title, but moreso to emphasize that moving pages during any AfD discussion (even if just a merge proposal) is generally frowned upon. (No opinion on the article.). WCQuidditch☎✎19:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Ah - it didn't read like LLM anywhere, and the sources I checked all were real sources that supported the info, so I didn't think there was an LLM. As for notability, I accepted based on the Legion of Honor medal per WP:ANYBIO, but if that's an insufficient award I wouldn't be opposed to deletion. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: insufficient valid secondary sources to pass GNG. She might have a famous last name but notability is not inherited here and also, we are not LinkedIn --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC).reply
This appears to be an LLM article creation with some typical WP:AISIGNS including WP:AIDASH and WP:AITREND (As a result, spall strength research continues to evolve at the intersection of materials science, mechanics, and data-driven engineering.). See the original submission. It hasn't had any substantial edits since article creation (mostly citation clean up, link clean up, and fixing section header casing). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete or very limited merge to Spallation or Spall (as in, just the first paragraph at most). The topic is notable, but the article is too detailed for a general audience, and violates WP:NOLLM. All the sources I checked are good, but it's your classic LLM-drafted technical article: A "history" section that cites a couple of off-topic passing mentions, a grab bag of applications each sourced to a stack of primary papers, and a "current research" or similar section that reads like engineering firm PR. Yuck. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM was used solely for Wikipedia formatting, not content generation. I’m not understanding your claim of over reliance on em dash use, as there is only one instance of their use in the article. Happy to concede that it gets a bit technical for a general audience, but so do many articles about niche properties (see acoustoelastic effect). I understand a push to merge, but looking at similar cases of a property that is behind a phenomenon (such as Fatigue limit and fatigue), makes it seem that this is not necessary. Ewint6 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails NOLLM. The dab link in the first revision is also telling, I find it implausible that someone would have written the LaTeX formulae with completely correct syntax but not link [[ballistics|ballistic]] correctly. This is not enough to convince me on its own, but it is an additional sign that I considered in totality with the rest of the other signs present on the page. There are some things that lead me to believe that this is probably not a wholesale generation, but the text has clearly passed through an LLM at some point. ‑‑gurkubondinn10:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. A redirect or a smerge would be an acceptable outcome for LLM cases, I think, but anyone is free to correct me. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – spall strength is a standard concept in shock physics, and the article cites 37 distinct sources in the journal literature. How the text was drafted is a cleanup matter: WP:NOLLM is not a notability criterion and WP:ATD applies. Kukuryza (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for context as to how someone (neither me nor the nominator) sorted this as a suspected AI-generated article (as the nominator did not bring it up at all): this has been tagged as such since March based on a 2024 edit that apparently must not have been cleaned up much in the intervening two years. (No opinion on that or the merge proposal.). WCQuidditch☎✎21:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This page was deleted earlier today by Crisco 1492 following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personalised external aortic root support, and an identical copy was already re-posted by the page creator and re-deleted per WP:G4. The page creator has now posted a shorter version at a page with a parenthetical disambiguator, presumably to evade detection. Since it is substantially shorter than what was deleted (although it does not include any new information), I do not know if G4 applies so am leaving it to the community; happy for an admin to G4 this if they decide it does apply. This version has a defective DOI link that is usually generated as a result of LLM assistance. Courtesy ping to the other participants in the AfD, WeirdNAnnoyed and Vanamonde93. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOLLM and G4. In my own estimation removing content from a previous version is insufficient to exempt a recreated article from G4. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a new version created today, it is not removing content from a previous version.
The version you posted today had identical content except for the two paragraphs removed. The whole thing had been generated by LLMs, which is why you need to start over from scratch, not just publish the same text you used before. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I initially removed those two paragraphs as that seemed to be the issue.
Now this version has been rewritten. Its only two paragraphs why would I generate it with an LLM? I have just rewritten the very basic description of what this procedure is. I cannot see how this is contested fact or AI generated. There are only two sources and both back up everything that is now written. It is claimed the DOI is evidence of it being generated by LLM but I have provided two valid sources taht clearly show the DOI that i cited. Tororro (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The DOI link in the article is still broken. You didn't "rewrite" the two paragraphs. You copied them from the original version you produced that involved LLM use. If you want to write on this topic, start over with human work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not attempting to evade detection and not sure why this is implied. I am trying to establish a page so that wiki users can find out about this procedure. The DOI appears to be correct as far as I can tell. see here: https://www.optechtcs.com/article/S1522-2942(21)00035-0/fulltext
This is a widely discussed and practiced medical procedure and deleting the page is not at all helpful for wiki readers that might seek information. Tororro (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Your LLM messed it up, creating a fake DOI and hallucinating the wrong author list. In the article it says Golesworthy and Treasure as authors; in the actual source, the authors are Kenny, Austin, Golesworthy, Venugopal and Alphonso. We'd love to have an article on this topic written by a human, but nothing you've done thus far is human-written, and it's far too dangerous to have unreviewed LLM output about medical devices and procedures on Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to OpenAI, specifically the section about agents. LLM-generated content can be cleaned up, so I'm not particularly concerned about that. However, given that this has been folded into OpenAI's agents feature, this content would best be suited there instead of a separate article. There is some significant coverage of the topic, but at this point I think it would be difficult to write more than a stub, so merging is probably best. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
A certainly AI-generated article with lots of evidence of WP:AISIGNS (example: Early company materials and press coverage describe the firm...) Even if it weren't bot output, there is no evidence of passing WP:NCORP; sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , , , ), WP:CORPTRIV (, ), and typical Nigerian news promo (same article in different sites: , ). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. Commenting as author. 1 - Galle Grid Substation is the country's first-ever utility-scale battery energy storage system. 2 - 10MW is huge in Sri Lankan energy industry, we have standalone power plant articles with a much smaller nameplate capacity. 3 - Grid-connected BESS facilities have their own articles on Wikipedia. 4 - Ignoring BESS altogether (and the huge news coverage of Sri Lanka's BESS rollout), the substation is one of approximately 10 that make up the primary backbone of the national grid. Rehman14:39, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
You haven't addressed the core issue here - how does this article meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability? Please show how it meets WP:GNG requirement to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Obi2canibe (talk)21:10, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
DeleteComment, I believe this to be AI-generated per the signs mentioned by Toadspike above and my previous interactions with Rehman. The sourcing is also not great and don't show SIGCOV meeting the GNG guidelines. ‑‑gurkubondinn14:41, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi Toadspike and Gurkubondinn. I have now updated the article with additional references which highlights the significance of the Galle BESS. I have also courtesy pinged on WT:ENERGY so folks there can shed some light on the significance of grid-connected BESS. I also want to emphasize that this was not created with AI. Cheers, Rehman15:48, 27 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the new sources, nearly all have no byline – similar to WP:RSNOI and WP:RSNON, this may indicate that the article was paid or is simply a recycled press release with little to no editorial review or fact-checking. The only one that looks good is . This one has a byline, but it appears to be a one-person outfit with no editorial review , so not an RS. This still leaves us around two sources away from the GNG. Toadspike[Talk]08:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Not directly relating to the subject of this AFD, but: Newswire, Newsfirst, Independent, Daily FT, etc, are the largest/leading English-language news providers in Sri Lanka. Why they don't use bylines in their news articles is not something I can comment on. Rehman11:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is the second article connected to Antonino Cardillo which is written in a very obvious AI-style. I strongly suspect that the article is authored by somebody connected to the subject. There are two architectural magazines linked here giving sigcov, I am not an expert in that field but I suspect they may be reliable. Ordinarily I would stubbify, however, I am loath to leave an article in mainspace that may have been professionally commissioned without a declaration.
Comment: As the principal reason for this thread was to gain perspective of other users, if no other comments are forthcoming in this relisting period, I would be happy to accept Jishara's opinion that stubbifying is the best way forward.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Does not qualify for soft deletion due to previous PROD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The page was intentionally created as a timeline of banking in Malta.
The brief introduction introduces the subject and provides context for the timeline, directing readers to the main article on history of banking and to a scholarly source covering the wider history of banking.
All entries in the timeline were compiled from published material on the history of banking in Malta and cross-referenced against relevant sources. The individual historical facts are also referenced to their sources.
LLM-generated content isn't allowed even if it is used to create a brief introduction.
The timeline section constitutes OR because it was compiled by the author from primary sources. The problem is that it is the author who chooses which facts to include and which to omit. Vgbypw (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
If there is an issue with the introduction, it can be rewritten. The fundamental issue seems to be the timeline itself. The timeline is based on an academic paper by John Consiglio (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/88410 which is considered to be the first article on the subject) and a book by Uwe Jens Rudolf (https://dokumen.pub/historical-dictionary-of-malta-153811917x-9781538119174.html). Presenting historical events in a basic chronological list should not be considered as primary research. The "research" was linking the list to all other Wikipedia pages on Malta banks and adding additional references to the events to justify their inclusion in the timeline. I don't agree that the contents of this page is original research. The discussion should rather focus on ways to improve it XonMalti (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
In the past I received feedback that some sentences did not use a formal or objective tone as per Wikipedia guidelines. So I did run the introduction through AI tools to set a more academic tone. The end result is a mix of my own writing enhanced with AI suggestions. I feel the end result still reflected the source article as well as introducing the subject. However, so far there has been no constructive feedback on how to improve the introduction.
Timeline:
The chronological entries were extracted manually, noting down the key dates whilst reading the sources mentioned above. The timeline was collated over a year and a half whilst drafting another page. Once published, the feedback received was to offload certain sections to subsidiary pages; hence, this Wikipedia page.
Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.
Keep The topic is obviously notable. Timelines are not OR, we even have MOS:TIMELINE. The lead is indeed ORish and AI assisted, but it should be easy to clean up as the bulk of the page is a sourced timeline. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Obviously a notable topic, but the use of AI means I don't trust the accuracy of the article because of potential hallucinatory text. Best to WP:TNT this and start over with an editor(s) not using LLM.4meter4 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Potentially LLM written article that's mostly just an essay about a vague and broad topic instead of an article about a well established concept. "Immigrant entrepreneurship" can be anything. Cubnorth (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep with reduction. Immigrant entrepreneurship is a widely accepted term and the subject of a substantial body of academic research. I rewrote the article in my sandbox, simplifying the prose and reducing its length by more than 50%, then replaced the live article. I also added a definition section to help clarify the concept. I believe the revised version addresses the concerns raised and is much more conducive to other editors expanding, restructuring, or rewriting the article as needed. The subject is specifically studied and tracked by organisations including the OECD, which includes a dedicated section of its International Migration Outlook 2 to the subject, and is the focus of a specific chapter in Elsevier's Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, among many other major academic publications. This is precisely the type of significant subject that Wikipedia should include. Its prominence can be quickly verified through searches of Google and JSTOR.
Wikipedia contains many obscure subjects that may legitimately warrant articles, but this is an established and important area of study that deserves inclusion because of it encompases such a broad range. The sources I have provided are all strong academic publications devoted again specifically to the subject. Even the source provided by ladmc, the German Historical Institute's Immigrant Entrepreneurship project covering immigrant entrepreneurship in American history broadly, reinforces the importance and established use of the term.
That said, although I am strongly opposed to LLM generated content, I recognise that my writing style may resonate with this issue. My writing also tends toward an essay style, which is something I have done professionally since long before AI existed and is a legitimate complaint by other editors. I am trying to work this out of my writing in general. I believe this may be partly because I develop highly polished articles. I made nearly 300 edits on Wikipedia developing this article, (not what you find in LLM generated content) and probably an equal amount of the work was done outside Wikipedia because I find it considerably easier to structure, move material around that way.
My proposed solution is the normal one for a notable subject where the article faces such concerns, that is to substantially reduce it. Over the next few days, during this discussion, I intend to shorten the prose considerably, probably by about half, while retaining as much of the existing structure and sourcing as possible.
One problem on Wikipedia is that articles can grow through incremental additions until they become sprawling and unorganised. I would like to leave this article with well developed structure but limited prose that makes it conducive to future contributions by other editors, while retaining the substantial academic sourcing that provides a foundation for future expansion. This is an approach I plan on taking in all of my future writing, limited prose with strong structure.
I want to elaborate a little more as the nominator. There is no one unique thing that ties the information in this article together except for 'immigrants can be entrepreneurs'. This means that in my opinion, that's all the article is really saying. If the observations that followed were conclusive and uniform, then I'd understand a bit more, but as it stands almost all of them boils down to 'it varies', which is obvious. I respect that this is an area of interest for you, but as it stands I believe this topic is far too broad to be a useful article. Cubnorth (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand the concern that the subject is broad, but I think that breadth is also what makes it valuable as an encyclopedia topic. Wikipedia benefits when it covers important central concepts, not just narrowly defined subjects. The study of immigrant entrepreneurship has considerable importance within sociology and social economics, which is why there is such substantial academic literature devoted to it.
The difficulty for me has been presenting the body of material without turning the article into an essay or adding my own synthesis. I could write a more cohesive argument connecting the research, but that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. The article needs to be built from what the sources actually say, which can make it difficult to present the material cohesively.
At the same time, I am addressing the perception of LLM-assisted writing in the typical manner, by substantially reducing the prose and making the article more direct and source-focused. This often works against your concern, since reducing the prose can also make it harder to explain the connections among the research. I will post a rewritten version in the next few hours.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think this is a case where creative editing and restructuring can solve the problems. It would be a shame to lose an important area of study that belongs in an encyclopedia when the underlying subject and sourcing are very strong.JondeJon1 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I did try and shorten the article substantially to alleviate LLM concerns which is a common way to deal with these problems, it also addressed my tendency towards writing essays. It would be a shame to lose a good topic well sourced by academic citations.JondeJon1 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment On a path forward: if the consensus is that the current article does not meet mainspace standards, I would ask that it be moved to draft space rather than deleted outright. This would allow me to reduce it to a stub, which is the standard remediation for articles with suspected LLM content, and to resubmit it through the Articles for Creation process. On the merge suggestion: merging with Middleman minority or Model minority would not be appropriate. Both of those are subsections of the broader topic of immigrant entrepreneurship rather than equivalent or parent concepts. JondeJon1 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – this is an established research field with literature in Oxford University Press journals, NBER working papers and OECD reports, all cited in the article. Breadth is an editing problem, not grounds for deletion. Kukuryza (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep the NDTV profile in there is solid, as is the Himalaya Times piece and this Cricket Monthly piece. I'd recommend that we revert it to an older version, though - the current one has WP:AIBOLD and utilizes the * signs at multiple places, which is a pretty strong sign that it's significantly altered by AI - looks like it was during the edits on 21 January 2026, so revision to the version before that would work well Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. The issue isn't whether there are any sources mentioning Ghimire; there clearly are, Jishara. The relevant question is which sources constitute significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. The Cricket Monthly/ESPN feature appears to be the strongest source and is substantially about Ghimire, while several other results I found are primarily routine coverage of CAN events in which she is mentioned in her official capacity. I will pass this on to other editors' judgement. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: Since the question raised in this AFD is WP:GNG, a 5 second google search gave me this on the first page which easily indicates she is notable enough and pass WP:GNG. I also agree with Jishara on AI . Khagendra (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't want to influence you to change your opinion, Khagendra. However, I don't think the links you shared necessarily establish WP:GNG by themselves. Some appear to be routine coverage or mentions in connection with her official roles, rather than significant independent coverage of Ghimire herself.. But I will dig deeper onto what Jishara mentioned. And again, trivial mentions or routine company coverages don't qualify a person for WP:GNG. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Routine coverage of appointments and resignations, trivial mentions and other interview pieces do not help establish notability. Keep voters should try to find sources that are completely independent of the subject. New ground, old hurdles can be considered one such source, as it provides substantial independent analysis of the subject, but the subject is still far from meeting GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like it can -the LLM stuff appears to have been done on 21 January 2026, and there's an IA bot revision on 20 January 2026 that seems quite a bit better - it's still a bit weird but doesn't seem AI genned. Furthermore the article's been a thing since it was created in July 2015, so there are definitely unquestionably pre-AI versions. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete not notable, most references are just brief mentions.
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wiki-revisor - Claude-based diagnostic assistant that checks Spanish Wikipedia articles against the Manual of Style and reports issues for human editors to fix; it does not write or rewrite article text. WIP
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories
