I propose merging because the subject does not demonstrate notability independently. The previous deletion discussion ended in a redirect because editors considered the available coverage too company-centred. Ammy Connoly (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for starters, the proposed merge target is Ferns N Petals. That is the same target as the redirect that resulted from the first nomination from 2019, but this is actually the subject's third nomination, and it outright survived the second one from July, which the current nominator appears to have not taken into account. But that might be a moot point: the nominator also did not mention this was separately tagged (by another user entirely) as potentially LLM-generated earlier this month, which might make both keeping or a straight merge untenable, and the right path may well be simply redirecting (which may or may not be coupled with deleting the article history as warranted). No opinion on any of this beyond that. WCQuidditch☎✎23:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:NCORP. Recreation of an article deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybage Software in October 2025. The new version cites announcements of office openings, executive interviews and trade sites, plus a list of profitable unlisted companies. None of these is independent coverage that discusses the company in depth, so the reasons for the earlier deletion still apply. Ell Pollar (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This would appear to me the biography of any physician - like many others around the world - who is no doubt a caring and devoted medical health professional. What is does not evidence is any signs of notability in the Wikipedia sense. All the referencs given are primary sources, with from Dr Siddavaram's own website of from a hospital he is associated with. I note in particular the wording "Siddavaram's professional profile lists several awards and distinctions" which would appear to one of the ways that hint at WP:LLM generation - citing the citations instead of adding the citations themselves. (Apologies, I can't remember the link for this offhand.) Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM-generated article created by a single-purpose account raising potential COI concerns. Forbes, IMDb and The Startup Playbook podcast do not appear to establish the subject's notability. Both pages, Luke Anear and Mitti independently meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I request an admin review of the account for possible undisclosed paid editing and disruptive LLM use. Emprine (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom: The article is decently sourced albeit being written using an LLM. The merge target is the most suitable parent article covering the same subject. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Doesn't seem to be notable. EDM.com and Dancing Astronaut don't seem reliable from past discussions, and what they do feels press-releasy. only source left that may possibly be reliable and independent is EDM Identity, but that's only one source and we need multiple. couldn't find anything else. article is also AI-generated and so will need to be stubbified, regardless of what happens here. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The page creator is also an admitted-paid editor for Vampa's husband. Its a bit hard to track from the edit history of their talk and user page, but they admitted so. It doesn't appear as if they disclosed it in this case. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and the related discussion here and a previous similar discussion here on Ariana Grande's talk page. the only way i could see this topic at all existing on this site is in a non-focused section of an article more generally about grande's public image (which i believe has heaps more potential for a dedicated article than her health and appearance, most of which is NOTGOSSIP), but even that's a stretch. as it stands (and, honestly, as it could ever be rewritten), a standalone article is not warranted.
also, the cultural appropration/racefishing has briefly existed on grande's article before, but it caused an edit war and a lengthy discussion on whether to include it which was seemingly decided against (as it hasn't been added back since, as far as i can tell). so both previous consensuses were obviously not considered nor seeked to be changed.
Delete - In addition to being hideously written by a nonhuman, this article attempts to smash together every controversy in which Grande has ever been involved, many of which are not related to her appearance (such as her evolving vocal style). The article's title is possibly clickbait. Everyone above has presented policy-based reasons for deleting the article. I will add that some reliable sources have discussed Grande's physical appearance, but they repeat the claims of haters and rumormongers and then comment on those claims, which may well be journalistic but it is not encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. A standalone article on a living person's health and body is a WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP problem by design, since it invites speculation built on tabloid commentary and gives WP:UNDUE weight to how she looks. Anything well sourced, such as her own public responses to the commentary, belongs in a short section of Ariana Grande. Julipero (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Article created and maintained by single-purpose account that has to be repeated have promotional wordings removed from new additions. Newest additions is just straight up LLM generated. New user starting an article skipping directly through AfC for the sole purpose of promoting someone - nuke and go for AfC when it's ready. 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 12:37, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. It's all about who wrote the article. Anyone can create an article directly, AfC is optional and this one isn't even new it's been around since 2016. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's promo or LLM text it can be fixed or reverted, which was already done. Deleting a possibly notable subject because of who edited it isn't how this works, AfD isn't cleanup. On the actual question: El Espectador ran a full piece on him in 2022, though it's mostly interview. The JPost is good one but short. He was also finalist at the Montreux Jazz Festival in 2014 Placing at a major competition is one of the music criteria and Montreux seems like it counts. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: Only the Hebrew source given in the comment above really helps, the first is an album review for another person and the third one isn't really independent. I don't see any sources in my search, only one concert video from a New York State performance. I'm not seeing enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
He has an established career as a jazz guitarist with a wide international reach. Well known among jazz musicians. He performed as a bandleader at Blue Note Jazz Club in NYC, Birdland, major festivals in Europe, South America, Canada. ~2026-55517-76 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I found an article in the independent source Musica Terra. A praise on a greek newspaper, and the already mentioned Jerusalem Post article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-55517-76 (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Several WP:AISIGNS in this article. There's a WP:RO3 inside another RO3 in the first paragraph. The entire article for the most part was created in one edit that was made only 22 minutes after the creator's last edit (while obviously people can edit in different tabs, this is something to take note of). And even if it wasn't generated by a WP:LLM, it still comes off as WP:PROMOTIONAL, and the creator has disclosed they are a paid contributor. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment (article creator; disclosed paid contributor, see my user page): Responding to the points raised. On notability - the company has a decade of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, including the Wall Street Journal (2015), Financial Times (2016), The Times (2017), BBC News (2018), Reuters (2025), The New York Times (2026) and The Economist (2026), and its data has been cited in UN Security Council Panel of Experts reports. I believe this satisfies WP:NCORP. On the single-edit creation - the article was drafted and sourced offline over several weeks and many hours, and pasted as a finished draft; my paid COI was disclosed per WP:PAID before creation. Every statement is cited and was checked against its source. On tone - I'm removing trademark symbols per MOS:TM and reworded the phrasing flagged as promotional, and I welcome pointers to anything remaining. I will fix it, or any editor is welcome to. Given the extensive sourcing, I'd ask that fixable concerns be handled by editing rather than deletion (WP:ATD). BetweenTheFootnotes (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find this: , which might be WP:SIGCOV (I'm not familiar with the source). Otherwise the best I could do was (Ref. 2 in the existing article), which looks like churnalism to me. The WSJ piece (Ref. 23 in the article) might be significant. I'm leaning keep based on that, but the article is full of AI-ish puffery and superfluous sources that mention the company once while discussing completely different topics. If the previous user (the creator) could link to a non-paywalled version of the Economist piece cited in the article that would be helpful; that could be a real source although the title doesn't fill me with hope. If kept, the article needs a massive haircut. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete by NCORP and per above concerns. Startups are usually NN. Exceptions exist but this is not one of them. Nom's concerns further aggravate any potential case for keeping. This case is weak from start. gidonb (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment (article creator; disclosed paid contributor). Thank you to the editors who've taken the time to review the article and give specific feedback; responding to the points raised since my first comment. On the Economist piece (July 14, 2026) - it cites Windward's transit data directly: "Just 11 vessels transited the strait on July 12th, down from 36 a week earlier, according to Windward, another such firm" (the preceding sentence names Kpler as "a ship-tracker"). Per WP:PAYWALL I'm happy to supply further quotations. I'd class it as reliance on the company's data rather than in-depth coverage; for depth I'd point to the WSJ (2015) piece WeirdNAnnoyed identified above and the two independent analyses of the 2024 take-private (Calcalist; Globes via The Jerusalem Post). Re the startup characterization - the company was founded in 2010, traded on the London Stock Exchange's AIM from 2021 to 2025, and was acquired by FTV Capital for approximately $270 million, so I'd ask that WP:NCORP be weighed against that record. I've also condensed the Products section and removed any phrasing flagged as promotional. On AfC, noted. All feedback welcome. BetweenTheFootnotes (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep promising subject with coverage in The Verge, The Guardian and Amnesty Int. The coverage is profound and non-trivial. The article itself must be improved and sourced with new sources. The current links are not workingLeuvraethi mer Dorus (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet. reply
Keep – Clearly passes WP:GNG with coverage from BIRN, *The Guardian*, and Amnesty. The tech section just needs a good cleanup and trimming to remove the AI-like phrasing, but deletion is unnecessary here. Vinkovčanin (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose draftifying because there is potential for notability for this person for their awards but the article was clearly written using an LLM. The author has had similar drafts rejected due to this issue but has expressed a willingness to improve the articles. I do have concerns regarding their brief edit history. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: I don't see notability for this young person. The UN award is fine, but a "youth advocate" isn't notable. This is typical and it's in a student newspaper regardless, so a non-RS. There isn't much sourcing to begin with, and an "advocate" this young is rarely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I’ve looked into the available sources on Tariq Lawal (my subject), and I agree that the article needs work. The Global Citizen profile gives some detailed coverage of his creative work and activism, while BusinessDay and New Telegraph have also covered his involvement in youth online-safety discussions.
I understand the concerns about relying on awards and brief mentions alone. I think the article should be assessed on the quality and depth of the independent coverage, rather than on the awards by themselves. I’m willing to address the sourcing and content issues, and I would prefer draftification over deletion if the article needs more work before it is ready for the mainspace. Abrotem (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Soapboxing article that's so full of LLM-generated stuff that I can't even see anything worth rescuing. If we're TNTing this instead, then my suggestion will be to not translate the corresponding article from Russian Wikipedia but to start with our own accepted sources... 海盐沙冰/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 11:58, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The only portions of the text that may have been generated by an LLM are the critical sections, which rely exclusively on primary sources and violate both the principles of balanced presentation and other established Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning biographies of living persons. ~2026-55247-92 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Support - Per nomanators reason. To much LLM and poor sourcing. The best way is just to redo this from ground up.
Keep. We don't delete entries because they're bad, we delete them because they're not relevant to the encyclopedia. Sloppy content can easily be identified. Should soon be deleted. None of this material is related to the compromising material our number account tries to remove from the page, based on a misreading of the guidelines.
The subject's notability is unclear, as the article is little more than a stub and does not establish why the subject merits a standalone encyclopedia entry. The article also reads as though it may be AI-generated and more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic summary Sittin Courtside Teeda (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Regardless, there needs to be some discussion of the question of whether the claim of AI-usage for article creation is correct, which would indicate that it would need to be stubified.
I wrote this article. As I asserted prior, I did not use AI. The nominator did not provide any reasons why they think the article was AI-generated. The writing process of this article is visible in its revision history. Please let me know if you have further questions about the development of this article. (Also, the nominator followed my contributions and nominated two articles I had recently edited [see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Bosshard] for deletion.) Wrackingtalk!05:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Created with an LLM in the same fashion as was discussed in this previous AfD. Per WP:NOLLM, article creation with LLMs is not allowed, and the RfC that led to NOLLM was explicit that there is no grandfathering-in of LLM-generated articles that existed before the adoption of NOLLM. There is also no provision in NOLLM to allow LLM-generated content that has been reworked by a human: generating article content with LLM is just not allowed. In this AfD I am nominating not only Wellness guru but also
Keep, evaluate individually: This nom (again) ignores WP:LLMPRVOBJ, and decides that "Actually, reversing removal of content is philosophically impossible". If you have issues with an individual article, please actually point them out. Wellness guru is the weakest of the remaining articles, and so we've been prioritizing actively working to improve it. It is rather disappointing that the nominator saw these ongoing improvements and decided to take it as an opportunity to AfD all of them at once.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ states that “Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines.” In this instance, the content on the page nominated for deletion was actively being reworked when the page was nominated, as illustrated by the edits done to it in between objecting to the PROD and this nomination. Other pages have had presumptive deletion objected to through demonstrated action to fix the page content, so I am unsure what makes this case different. DraconicDark (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ requires the article to comply with all policies and guidelines. It therefore requires the article to comply with the NOLLM guideline, which says that articles cannot be LLM generated. Do people actually find this confusing? I find LLMPRVOBJ to be worded quite clearly: it requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines. No amount of reworking of text that was originally generated with an LLM will ever make it comply with NOLLM. Einsof (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'm confused about what people seem to think the LLMPRVOBJ process means. Obviously that guideline is describing a way to address and improve articles of the type that fit under NOLLM, in cases where that's warranted. It would be strange indeed if, as seems to be the case here, actually going through this prescribed process is thought to only be applicable when people are being shady about an article's history, and that we're being punished here just for trying to be as transparent as possible. Pharos (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
A plausible scenario for LLMPRVOBJ would be as follows: someone adds LLM-generated text to an originally human-written article. The article is sent to PROD. LLMPRVOBJ is invoked by reverting the article to its pre-LLM state, or else deleting the LLM-contaminated text if it is self contained. That article now complies with NOLLM and no deletion is required. Needless to say, none of that is applicable here: the nominated articles are contaminated by LLM generation from the get-go and will never be compliant with NOLLM without a complete do-over. Your invocation of LLMPRVOBJ was never valid. Einsof (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ requires the article to comply with all policies and guidelines. It therefore requires the article to comply with the NOLLM guideline, which says that articles cannot be LLM generated. Do people actually find this confusing? - That ... sounds like a totally nonsensical interpretation of LLMPROVOBJ? It doesn't exist to say "you can remove all the LLM-generated content to save an article"; NOLLM already has that handled. The point of that section is the Besides potentially removing the content... part, which sure would be a bizarre bit of language to have if "potentially" were "definitely" and "besides" meant "there is no besides". Not arguing keep/delete here, but it would be good to get the policies straight. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:11, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ is a process within PROD and is subordinate to the policies and guidelines. It does not allow you to do an end-run around the PAGs, nor does it provide some kind of inoculation from a subsequent AfD. The "besides" clause may operate, for example, in a situation where an article has been brought to PROD but the extent of LLM contamination is murky or doubtful, in which case one cannot conclusively determine that NOLLM has been violated. That isn't the case here: everyone at this AfD agrees the articles were generated with an LLM. Retaining the articles is a violation of NOLLM. The invocation of LLMPRVOBJ was never valid, the requirement by LLMPRVOBJ to draftify the offending articles was not undertaken, and now at AfD this clause within PROD is being used to try to supersede PAGs that were established by near unanimous RfC. Think about how bizarre and nonsensical your interpretation of LLMPRVOBJ is: it would mean that anyone can generate an article with an LLM, wait for it to be nominated for LLMPROD, and then say "Oh okay, I reworded 'delve' to 'dig', so now you can't delete it. I'm removing the PROD tag." Einsof (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ is a process within PROD No, it's not. It's part of the "presumptive removal" guideline, which is not just a prod mechanism. LLMPRVOBJ is for any content removed/proposed to be removed under that guideline. It does not allow you to do an end-run around the PAGs It is a guideline. requirement by LLMPRVOBJ to draftify - You are inventing that this as a "requirement". Think about how bizarre and nonsensical your interpretation of LLMPRVOBJ is: it would mean that anyone can generate an article with an LLM, wait for it to be nominated for LLMPROD, and then say "Oh okay, I reworded 'delve' to 'dig', so now you can't delete it Yes, that section is clearly a way out to avoid deletion if there's consensus that everything is fixed. It's not a section that exists to restate everything in NOLLM; it's the path to salvage. It sounds like you don't think it should exist, but for now it does. Your bad faith "reworded 'delve' to 'dig'" obviously would not persuade anyone and consensus would not form that the material should be retained. It sounds like there is no situation where you would actually go by that part of LLMPRVOBJ, and indeed if consensus never forms to retain LLM-generated material that someone has "assumed responsibility for" and performed a thorough review of, LLMPRVOBJ is a more or less meaningless section that should be removed. I don't have a strong opinion on that, except that while it does exist, it shouldn't be so blatantly misrepresented. I don't intend to comment further on this. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
LLMPRVOBJ is a section within "a special proposed deletion process, LLMPROD", like it says at the top of the page. It requires editors to move articles out of mainspace if they cannot be cured within the timeframe of PROD (that's the bit about "If the PROD timeframe is too short, editors are free to 'userfy' PRODed articles and remove the tag"), and that requirement was not met here—the tag was simply ripped off all these problematic articles with a vague assertion that they are slowly being reworked. I have already described a situation in which the "besides" part of LLMPRVOBJ can operate while not violating NOLLM. We can also ask Chaotic Enby, who I gather wrote the original version of LLMPRVOBJ. Einsof (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This goes back to the original question of: why are we banning LLMs from Wikipedia? There are, as I can see, two main reasons that contributors have brought up (not just me – I'm not in any way the ultimate authority just for having participated in policy-writing). On the one side, seeing LLMs as fallible tools whose use at scale ultimately expends more editor resources in cleaning up their errors. On the other side, taking Wikipedia as a fundamentally human effort, from a philosophical standpoint.Here, the two sides collide: what to do with LLM-written content which has already been verified (and fixed) by humans? I'll admit that the wording of WP:LLMPRVOBJ can be unclear – to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines would by default include WP:NOLLM, but the next sentence, Besides potentially removing the content, offers alternate options that might go against this, implying that the policies and guidelines implicitly exclude NOLLM. One point to keep in mind is that the removal is by definition presumptive – if there are no detectable issues with the text (of the kind that LLMs are prone to generate), the presumption is weakened, meaning the text is more likely to not have been breaking NOLLM in the first place. This point, however is moot in our specific case, as, from my understanding, the LLM-generated nature of the articles is established.Because of that, we go back to the original intent of LLMPROD – looking at the discussion that led to the proposal can enlighten it in some regards. At that point in time, most of the support for NOLLM came from the "LLMs make errors too often" side, rather than the "Wikipedia is by humans for humans" side – comments such as this one or that one show that the issue being addressed was PAG violations rather than a philosophical essence of the text.However, while LLMPROD was enacted with a strong consensus, little discussion in the RfC itself was spent on the implications of that specific provision. In that regards, I don't think it could have been anywhere close to overturning a well-established guideline like NOLLM. I will put their relationship closer to that which WP:BANREVERT has with WP:BANEVASION: editing in violation of a ban (or by using LLMs to generate content) is still against our policies, but other editors are allowed to take responsibility for such edits if they believe they would benefit the encyclopedia and verified the content of the edit, although the onus for inclusion is now on them.In general, in no place does the LLMPROD being removed grant immunity at AfD: the basis of the process is that a full review is assumed to have taken place, but, if that review is found lacking, the article can still be deleted through other processes regardless – exactly how a WP:PROD or WP:BLPPROD being addressed doesn't shield the article from a subsequent AfD. This isn't a magic bullet, and an editor making superficial changes in order to remove the LLMPROD tags without actually verifying the content can explicitly sanctioned for gaming the system: Repeatedly restoring content that violates policies and guidelines will likely be met with sanctions.Regarding the "removing the tag and doing nothing" part, this one is clearer: the guideline states After these steps have been taken the reviewed and revised content may be restored. If objecting to a proposed deletion, also remove the {{prod llm/dated}} template from the page. Namely, you can't just remove the {{prod llm/dated}} template and put others under the assumption that you will come back to it, but have to remove the offending content in the meantime, in order to rework it – which, in the case of a whole-ass article, amounts to draftification. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:45, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I think I'm in agreement with everything you have said here. There was never an idea that these articles should somehow qualify for an exemption from content quality policies. The point where I disagree with the AfD nominator is this concept that the articles from this project are subject to some sort of ineradicable "contamination" that they believe it is literally impossible to expunge or address. We're happy to address any concerns about article quality, and have indeed revised extensively several times over the past year, since way before this was ever raised. But the current AfD has made literally 0 claims about content quality issues, and has only relied on the philosophical argument. Pharos (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I suppose I should comment so that nobody thinks there was an oversight in the nomination: I quite intentionally did not discuss the articles' content because doing so would legitimize the idea that it's okay to generate articles with LLMs and then rope in other editors to act as human quality control for LLM output. NOLLM is quite clear that we don't do that on Wikipedia. Einsof (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per Pharos. The article nominated for deletion was being worked on, and looking at the page history, in fact there was a pretty large cleanup edit made in between the article being de-PRODded and this nomination, along with other smaller ones. This demonstrates, through action, that the article is being fixed and the LLM issues are surmountable. If users have committed to fixing the article (and crucially have demonstrated through action that they are doing it, like on this page), I don’t see why the page needs to be deleted. Nominating a page for deletion while the issues with it are actively being fixed feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The other pages can be revisited later and should be evaluated separately, but they similarly should not be deleted if the outstanding issues are surmountable and users are working to fix them, as it appears to have been expressed here. DraconicDark (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this fails NOLLM and should have been deleted already. No prejudice against someone else writing a new article on the topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn20:12, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep in support of comments made by Pharos and DraconicDark. The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. It contains the kind of useful information and citations that are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. The community needs to take care to support students and educators who chose to be bold in their approaches to editing. Future students should be allowed to fix this page further.--Mozucat (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The text on this page is no longer displaying the problematic LLM-generated content. Well, no, one can immediately see that the opening sentences of the article are materially unchanged from when the article debuted in mainspace, which is true of large portions of the article body as well. Any LLM-generated content is problematic LLM-generated content, even if it is subsequently massaged by a human. WP:NOLLM, established by community consensus, simply prohibits it. Einsof (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't believe that these articles are still up and that there are people contesting their deletion. Evaluating these articles case-by-case is a waste of time. These are straightforward cases of articles that were generated by LLMs. It doesn't matter if they were created before WP:NOLLM, and it doesn't matter if they were edited afterward to remove signs of LLM usage. That doesn't change the fact that they were systematically created through LLM-generation as part of a college course. If you think Wikipedia could benefit from articles on these topics, then you might as well put in the hard work of researching these topics and writing the articles yourself. Don't rely on a tool that prioritizes quantity over quality. Lazman321 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think these are worthy of individual evaluation. Wellness guru was the weakest of the articles, and consequently was undergoing active improvement since before this AfD was launched. But the others have not been commented on here at all, and I think at least African American film score composers is of really high quality (and also has been rewritten several times over, at a higher level of review than the others). Pharos (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Deletion per WP:TNT. It is uncontested that a LLM has been used in the creation of this article. Some cleanup has been attempted but a quick verification of selected excerpts still shows signs of problems. ~ BlueTurtles|talk09:12, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
DeletebutRefideas sourcing at / One-sentence merge to Portland cement as a failsafe. If we agree with the tenets of TNT then we agree with it’s position as encyclopedic content, thus we shouldn’t trust that we can be safe handing the info that’s been given to us of free volition back to someone who’s already abused NEWLLM. Takes a couple seconds longer but saves the next good faith actor hours down the line.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Despite the essay's popularity, WP:TNT is not a policy-supported deletion criterion. If the article qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G15, please tag it with {{Db-g15}}. Otherwise, deletion should be based on whether the subject meets our notability guidelines, rather than on how the prose was written. In the meantime, editors are encouraged to remove any LLM-generated or unsourced content, whittling the article down to a stub, if needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎17:57, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Nominator Comment: As mentioned within the relevant essay page WP:TNT, deletion is partially grounded in policy with consensus when verifiability is not met. Stubifying, in my opinion is problematic due to the prior usage of an LLM.~ BlueTurtles|talk07:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This article was previously declined AfC multiple times, moved to mainspace twice, and both times was draftified by other editors for lack of notability. The correct mainspace title Susan Villa then got creation protected due to the moves, then Lau125(talk·contribs) moved it to this incorrect title in mainspace anyway. I don't think the current sources meet notability. They are either primary or nonsignificant. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:45, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not voting merge, because the protest isn't even notable enough to reserve the name just to redirect to the main article and also the title is wrong, it uses "protests" when its really a single protest, I think the user created it in anticipation of more protests. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The proposed destination article is also proposed for a merge. Do we really need to merge this? ie, do we need to retain this content? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened through Proposed article mergers (PAM). Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical PAM process. I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Paramount Primal is a genre label of Paramount Pictures that was named in July 2026. The only source is a syndicated Variety report on a Nightmare on Elm Street deal, which mentions the label and its two heads in a few sentences. The content fits as a short section of Paramount Pictures until the label receives significant coverage. Ell Pollar (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: unrelated to the nominator's concerns, this was tagged by someone else as having been pasted from an LLM. That might make a straight merge less appealing; I don't think we can rule out a TNT deletion, adding human-written material about this label to Paramount Pictures, and simply creating a fresh redirect afterward. (No formal opinion on the matter.). WCQuidditch☎✎00:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
We shouldn’t merge it because there is more stuff on the page and just like Warner Bros. Clockwork, they haven’t released any movies yet but has some info about the company Low-gee7212014 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge As with anything involving this deal, I prefer to wait and see if they decide that even putting further effort into a film label that doesn't even have a film out in the market yet is worth it, if the films even come out or become regular old studio releases, or they get shoved off onto VOD or streaming. Nathannah • 📮23:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I see consensus against a standalone, but is there anything worth merging? The LLM concerns haven't been much discussed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:57, 16 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 result was delete. Basically TNT. Rewrite this in draft and once checked can just be moved or merged into a larger article as consensus suggests SpartazHumbug!10:02, 20 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
To repeat – The introduction is a summary of a very good academic article done by myself. It then went through AI to improve academic English, neutral tone etc. It has since be written again so there is no AI. XonMalti (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge to List of banks in Malta: rewritten to remove LLM and OR, in a new History section. After the merge, the page should be title-swapped with Banking in Malta, which is currently a redir to it. A single, cohesive article about banking in Malta, with history and list of banks, would serve readers best. Owen×☎19:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I have a comprehensive Draft:Banking in Malta which got shot down amongst others because it was too large. One of the recommendations was to have specific articles going into specific areas. Hence this article. List of banks in Malta in Malta is written by another author, focusing mainly on current Maltese banks subject to EU supervision. As explained further up the timeline itself is not OR! I don't agree there is any LLM and OR in the current version. XonMalti (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
There is no LLM-generated opening and no OR. I feel this discussion is going round in circles, not leading anywhere. I invite anyone to pinpoint any specific text which is deemed problematic. XonMalti (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@XonMalti Well for starters the fact that there’s an entire paragraph of the lede devoted to a general overview of the history of the banking industry itself. Even if you did write it yourself it’s plainly original research (not in the sense that it’s necessarily incorrect, but that it’s entirely unnecessary to have here). I’d like to believe it was a simple mistake on your part, but the fact that concerns raised about it don’t make it glaringly obvious to you that some explanation is in order for that material specifically doesn’t help.
If we plan to keep the page we need to Stubify per WP:NEWLLM, or simply TNT it and add whatever the most neutral sentence is back as a recreated page to get rid of the tainted page history.
To clarify, I did not come up with facts in the introduction. I just summarised the referenced article in my own words, so there is no original research. My English teacher taught me how to do a précis more than 30 years ago, I don't need AI to summarise text. The first introductory paragraph introduces the subject, linking it also to other Wikipedia pages, followed by an introduction to the actual timeline.
The "error", if any, was to allow "Quilbot" to suggest phrases to improve the tone of the text. Although WP:NEWLLM seems to imply that this use is allowed.
I may be a bit new to Wikipedia, but I feel this discussion has become a bit stale. Personally I prefer to focus on content. From what I am understanding, there are no issues with the timeline itself.
If the only way to close off the discussion is to delete and recreate this page, then I do it. I can also rewrite the introduction from scratch if there are still concerns. Let us close this discussion. XonMalti (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Move to draft. This is clearly a notable subject, and the concerns raised in the nomination and discussion can be addressed in draftspace as a prerequisite to restoration to mainspace. BD2412T23:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. I read through this discussion and still can't tell whether the current version of the article has been fully purged of LLM-generated text. The author has agreed above that the page can be deleted and then recreated without AI. Einsof (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The author has agreed to page deletion only because this discussion appears to be going nowhere. From what I am understanding, even though the introduction has been rewritten, there are purists who still have an issue with it without highlighting a single incriminating word. At this stage, would deleting the introduction resolve the matter?
As I said, this discussion has been dragging on for too long. I understand there are processes to follow, but I feel that this process is not leading anywhere.
I will delete the introduction, but please archive this discussion. Delete the 2 cleaned "but still tainted" paragraphs or the whole page, I don't care, just close this discussion. On 30 Sept, it was stated that it will be over by 7 days, 3 weeks later we are still going round in circles ,adding nothing new! XonMalti (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
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
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Frankly if both the suggested articles are subtopics within it then I'd argue we can use their notability to establish its. The notion of immigrant entrepreneurship necessarily derives from the sources that discuss them [referenced destination pages], and I know for a fact the topic is covered at length elsewhere. It's half the justification in the West for allowing in migrants/refugees (y'know, other than the fact that they're human beings and the notion of state boundaries is entirely arbitrary).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's currently a rough consensus that this article falls short of notability guidelines, but there remains disagreement as to whether any of the content is salvageable through a merge. Further discussion as to whether a merge is worthwhile is encouraged; new participants are also welcome to make additional arguments towards keeping the article outright if they so choose Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk19:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this fails NOLLM and any concerns about the notability are secondary. The AI user is avoiding saying outright that this is LLM-generated, and just talking around it with vague non-answers. If there's anyone that can say with certainty it is the account that has submitted it, but instead they are talking as if they can't possibly know. Just delete this, someone else is free to try to write a new article about this topic if they want to and can establish the notability of the topic. Lets not waste more time on this than we need to. ‑‑gurkubondinn20:03, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
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
