Chatbots (and the large language models that power them) have become very popular; they can often output material much faster than humans can. Unfortunately, they cannot write as well as humans (yet), and their output is prone to hallucinations, false citations, and other errors. This has created a major cleanup burden at Wikipedia, as many editors (especially new ones) try their hand at using artificial intelligence to edit Wikipedia. You can help by identifying AI-written text, removing unsourced or inaccurate claims, and by identifying AI-generated images. For more information, see our AI Cleanup Guide.
01 Jul 2026 – Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform(talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see {{slink|Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Global Donald}}. Feel free to reinstate by following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.
01 Jul 2026 – AI content watermarking(talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see {{slink|Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Global Donald}}. Feel free to reinstate by following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.
01 Jul 2026 – EnCodec(talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t · c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see {{slink|Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#User:Global Donald}}. Feel free to reinstate by following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.
"ChatGPT, could you write me a long, meandering Wikipedia article about a niche scientific methodology?" "Absolutely! What a great suggestion!" Utter LLM garbage. There are a couple of reliable, secondary sources in the long list of references, but a topic this specific does not deserve this much space. At the very least this article should be stubified. But I would prefer delete as per WP:NOLLM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep As the creator of this article, I have worked hard to add reliable historical context and textbook references to this page. The administration structure of the EIC is a major historical topic that deserves a focused, dedicated article for students looking for quick summaries, rather than being buried in the massive main article. I am highly willing to continue improving the prose and formatting based on community feedback. Toasted Pop Tarts Caramel (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While I understand Wikipedia is not a study guide, this article is not a mere set of flashcards or exam notes; it is a comprehensively structured historical overview of a major institutional apparatus. The level of granular detail provided here regarding the three Presidencies, the Cornwallis Code of 1793, the exact structural evolution of the Indian Civil Service, and the administrative divisions of the military/police goes far beyond a brief summary. I am actively working on expanding the prose and refining the encyclopedic tone to ensure it meets standard repository guidelines. ~~~~
Per WP:AITALK, please do not use LLM or other AI-based tools to generate your contributions to discussions like this. We have no interest in reading what some text-prediction algorithm thinks we should read. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to East India Company — the topic is notable (Company administration is well documented in academic scholarship), so this isn't a WP:GNG problem. But the article relies on two sources, one a school textbook, and reads as an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. No one here has offered scholarly sourcing to support a standalone article, and the parent article can absorb this content without difficulty. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article was written by a user named @Aliaspli:, whose other contributions relate to Libya Crimes Watch. The references are often broken, possibly an artifact of AI usage which was flagge by @Gnomingstuff:, and do not appear to be secondary sources giving significant coverage. In my view this article should be deleted per WP:COI, WP:LLM and probably WP:GNG. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for opening this discussion.
Before creating the article, I disclosed my conflict of interest on both the English and Arabic talk pages in the interest of transparency. After receiving advice from experienced editors, I stopped editing the article directly and welcome any further improvements by uninvolved editors.
I appreciate the concerns raised regarding the article's current sourcing and presentation. If some references are weak, primary, or require replacement, I fully agree that these are editorial issues that should be addressed through the normal editing process.
The central question in this discussion, however, is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources under WP:GNG.
I believe there are independent sources that merit careful consideration. These include multiple dedicated reports and interviews published by Al-Wasat in 2016 covering the subject's abduction, detention, release, and subsequent interviews, as well as later independent coverage by JusticeInfo discussing his work on accountability in Libya. Additional independent coverage also exists in other media. While editors may reasonably differ on the weight of individual sources, I respectfully suggest that the available evidence should be assessed as a whole rather than by focusing on the article's current shortcomings.
If the article does not yet make the best use of the strongest independent sources, I would welcome improvements by uninvolved editors. In my view, concerns about sourcing, neutrality, or presentation are matters that can be addressed through editing rather than, by themselves, supporting deletion.
Redirect to Golden generation. The topic is already covered there, and I am not seeing enough sourced, standalone content to justify a separate article. The LLM concerns further weaken the case for keeping a fork. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to mostly have been generated (potentially by an LLM) from two academic papers, and conflates some of the content of the papers with the specification itself. I removed an example of this in an attempt to improve the article, but I now think the required changes are too significant and it should be deleted.
The structure of the article seems to be inferred from the content of the academic papers, rather than being helpful for the reader. Greg Tyler(t • c)12:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've stubified the article to remove the conflation of conventional commits with the methodology used in the papers. ~ A412talk!14:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the creator's edit summary outright acknowledges this was created using Gemini AI and manual editing, so an LLM was definitely involved at some point (even if the remnants of its output have been at least reduced in the stubification). No opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎15:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY guideline with no possibility of improvement. The article currently only references primary sources, and upon searching, there seems to be no independent coverage of this organization sufficient to meet notability requirements. Additionally, the article itself shows signs of LLM usage and reads as more of a brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Concerns have already been tagged and raised on the talk page by other editors without any action over several months. Improving or cleaning up the page does not currently seem feasible. Wichey (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Machine-translated article with LLM hallmarks. I'm unable to find evidence that this topic meets NCORP, which is the applicable notability guideline. Most of the content is uncited. The coverage I can find is all name-checks, with no detail. There isn't merge-worthy content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an LLM generated article by a user that has generated multiple articles and edits. It has been draftified, but the user moved it back into article space.
Diff/1362192914: regeneration after being draftified. Switches citation style, adds an anecdote about the districts name that wasn't present before, more WP:AIATTR, etc. Clearly not a human rewrite.
The user has in other articles around the same general timeframe;
The user has confirmed LLM use on User talk:Hikmat-Maghdid § July 2026, so this is not 'just suspected' to be generated. The subject can be presumed to be notable per WP:GEOLAND, and is this nomination is only about the fact that the article itself fails WP:NOLLM. No prejudice against someone writing a new article about the district. ‑‑gurkubondinn16:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "deletion is not cleanup" stanza originates from before a time where we had to deal with LLM slop was that was generated faster than it could be read. Deletion is cleanup of generated pages, because deleting them is not about the notability of the subject. Otherwise you're arguing that we are obligated to rewrite generated slop just because someone plopped it into mainspace. In this case someone did stubify it, and thus deleting it no longer required, since the LLM-generated text is no longer present. Like I said in the nom (I even linked to GEOLAND which is the same as NCITY), this page was nominated only because it is generated, not because of the subject or the notability of the subject. ‑‑gurkubondinn22:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stubification is an alternative to deletion that does not require rewriting the article or expending much effort at all besides removing the LLM-generated text. Typically the first few sentences identifying the subject of the article are hardly complicated and the LLM rarely makes significant mistakes in them, so it is simple to verify the content of the stubified article. Rather than using deletion processes, WP:STUBIFYING the article should be used to remove LLM-generated content.
Deletion is not cleanup still applies here - there is a valid alternative process that remedies all relevant deletion reasons (i.e. violation of existing policies and guidelines), so that must be considered before deletion of the page is considered. Katzrockso (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, stubification is a valid alternative, hence I have not opposed that. In most cases, for dealing with LLM generated articles, deletion is better and preferred. It does not leave the generated text in the page history where anyone can restore it, for instance. Someone coming across a stub and seeing a larger article in the history and decides to restore it just recreates the same problem again. It is also not always possible to stubify, and "removing all generated text" means removing all of the text and amount to a complete rewrite. There is still some generated text in the stub, so the problem is still there (just a lot smaller), but a deletion would have fixed the problem fully (I'm still not opposed to the stubification because the problem has been dealt with and there is so much more to move on to).
This is one of the reasons that WP:LLMPROD exists, and can be restored/tagged multiple times. There is an asymmetry in workload when it comes to LLM-generated text. In the time that it takes to stubify one article, ten new ones can be created. I agree that "deletion is not cleanup" in general, but not when it comes to cleaning up after LLM inserting users. Articles are often deleted for being LLM generated, and it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. We are already being overrun by this, and we need to use the most effective tools and processes to deal with this. Deletion and AfD is one of them, that's why the there is a DELSORT specifically for it. ‑‑gurkubondinn01:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the time that it takes to stubify one article, ten new ones can be created It takes the same amount of time to stubify an article as it takes to delete an article, if not less work to stubify it. It requires no use of administrator tools and no lenghty processes that take up administrator and community time. AfD is already overburdened with declining participation - there is absolutely no need to bring articles here that could have and should have been remedied with WP:ATD as WP:BEFORE recommends.
If someone goes to an LLM and generates the sentence "Chicago is a city in Illinois" and adds it to Wikipedia, does that warrant deleting the article in which that verifiably true sentence is contained? I don't think so.
As for your argument about edit history, I don't think it is common for editors other than the creator to restore LLM content stubified in this manner. One editor did revert my stubification [6], but that was likely because I did not use a sufficiently explanatory edit summary, and they quickly re-removed the content [7]. If the creator of a LLM-generated article is restoring LLM-generated text, that could and should be reported to WP:AIN and/or WP:ANI so that sanctions may be levied against the disruptive editor. The fact that editors can be disruptive does not mean that articles should be deleted and alternatives to deletion should be ignored. The edit history, even if LLM-generated, can contain useful references to sources that editors may use to expand the stubified article. Search engines have returned increasingly poor references and often content that is available at one point in time can no longer be easily located using search engines in the future (I have many times found an article at one point in time only to be completely unable to find it later), meaning that the references found in the edit history could be vital to expansion and are not easy to access in the future. Even though some of these references might be not relevant to the topic (as LLMs tend to hallucinate), many of them are.
The existence of MOS violations, violations of WP:NPOV has never warranted deletion, so I don't know why the fact that LLM-generated content exists in the edit history of an article warrants deletion of the article over taking the much easier route of stubifying it. Katzrockso (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It actually happens often enough to be a problem. Some did just that while I was writing an earlier reply here. A redirect had been turned into an LLM-generated article in March, and had been a redirect again since then. Someone restored the (confirmed) LLM text, and reinstated after I reverted with explanations. Currently it is an unsourced stub instead, instead of the useful redirect that it was, but at least it is not LLM junk.
If someone created an article with the words "Chicago is a city", we wouldn't be able to tell it was LLM, except if they had created a bunch of other articles (or made edits) that we knew were LLM generated. That is almost always the case though, but you are focusing on the wrong thing here. One of the things that LLMs mess up the most is summarizing sources accurately, hence the source to text issues. A lead is supposed to summarize the article. LLM generated leads are usually awful. Leads with cites can be better, but they can also be junk. The references may not even exist (more common than being irrelevant), and then G15 can be used if enough sources are hallucinated and the article has only existed as an LLM generation.
i saw the revert and self revert of the stubification. That is normal and how it should work. But AINB is only a cleanup board, it is not a place for sanctions. Though it sometimes does happen, but usually a trip to ANI is required. Several cases involve hundreds or thousands of pages, many are so old and time consuming that they have fallen off the board. One recent case involved ~600 created pages, I tagged about ~150 of them for LLMPROM (others tagged hundreds as well) which was time consuming enough. If I had to stubify or rewrite ~150 articles then I wouldn't have gotten through it. Deleting articles that are caught early reduces the workload (by one article each). The threshold to deleting LLM junk articles should be lower (and not prevent someone from writing a new article on the subject). Most of our policies, guidelines and norms just don't account for massive amounts of machine generated text that looks like someone wrote it. They mostly assume that text has always been written by someone, but that is not true anymore. We don't even know if it is true for most edits or new pages anymore.
You are right that LLM generated articles are a massive timesink. But that is not the fault of the people trying to clean it up (who are having their time wasted), it's on the person that added it in the first place. The right way to deal with the increased asymmetric workload is to prevent it in the first place or stop it from propagating, not to prevent cleanup. MOS/NPOV violations are very different, so it never made sense to solve those via deletion. The editing history alone is not the only reason for deletion being preferred over stubification. Draftification is usually a good way, but this had already been draftified and was moved back into article space so it wasn't an option. This time stubification was the outcome, which is perfectly acceptable. Alternatives to deletion are not ignored, they are just not always appropriate.
But this has gotten long and off topic. We should move it to one of our pages if you want to continue. You are also welcome to participate in WP:AIC if you want to gain a better sense of what the problem is like, more participation is for sure needed. ‑‑gurkubondinn02:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stubified version. Cannot support the view that they all have to be stubified, though. LLMPROD is two cut and paste operations. A good stubification takes much longer. We are routinely dealing with high hundreds to low thousands of these per major case and speed really does matter. M kuhner (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reading what is said about this place and about the districts themselves, the issue here is that there may be two places: Bahirka the town/city, and Bahirka the subdistrict of Erbil District, which is not the same as Erbil the historic city. Mapping clearly shows a town/city here, which makes sense that it was a municipality. But where is the map of the subdistrict borders? And this is only district article not at "X District". So while I think keeping is in order, what the article says is a bit suspect. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Keep - I am the author of this page and it passes WP:GNG as significant, reliable sources are independent of the subject, as seen here. Sources provided as references are from both local and foriegn notable media houses and are not just any routine business news. --Siagoddess (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an academic, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. The notability claim here is as president of a university, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way an automatic notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing -- note that neither her predecessor nor her successor have Wikipedia articles at all -- but this is referenced mainly to a mixture of primary sourcing from the university's own self-published website and glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in local news articles that aren't about her, which are not support for notability, while the only reliable source that's actually about her is a mere blurb rather than substantive coverage or analysis, and thus isn't enough to magically vault her over GNG all by itself. Also, the article has been tagged by somebody else for possible use of an LLM, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge and expertise in the subject of university administration can find the necessary range and depth of reliable sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable without much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per Ca's comment above, all of the AI-generated slop content should be removed. In terms of notability, I agree with nom somewhat in that the primary notability claim here is as president of a university, and that may be somewhat unclear in contributing to WP:NACADEMIC#6. According to the Carnegie Classification[14], the uni has an outsized commitment to geosciences research and life sciences, but the subject isn't involved in either of those fields. But if others could find other more relevant data on the university's research impact I would be willing to change my vote. Jay-GH11:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The link provided by GuardianH indicates the university is master's-only and spends just ~2.6 million on research, which is tiny. In general we consider C6 to apply to major research universities. JoelleJay (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
All I can find is sources about the film Gorai Phakhri where she played a lead role. No significant coverage exists beyond routine coverage in these sources. Fails GNG and NACTOR. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources cited provide passing (or no) mentions, and therefore don't come even close to meeting GNG, and there is nothing in this to suggest NACTOR would be satisfied either. Note: given that this is the 2nd AfD, and this version of the article has been draftified already which the author objected to, I am specifically !voting 'delete' rather than 'draftify'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
with the recent update of the page with the subject's works and filmographies, I hope the page is meeting all the criteria to be a standalone and independent Wikipedia page as per the WP:NACTOR.
I strongly feel and hope that all the issues regarding the subject's work and filmographies has been solved successfully now and if it is so then the Notice should be removed at the earliest. Thank You. Laogaa45 (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
Keep: as a regional artist the subject has limited published sources that's the reason why her other works have been ommitted initially. However, now I have updated with her works and filmographies (music videos excluded) and I feel that now the page is meeting the Wikipedia criteria and the notice should be removed at the earliest. Laogaa45 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Sock strike --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sock
KEEP: Helina Daimary's contributions to the Bodo-language cinema and the regional music and film industries are what make her worthy of a standalone independent Wikipedia page rather than a redirect or deletion. She is highly celebrated in the region and has a solid fan following. Her work in the film Gorai Phakhri (Wild Swans), where she was praised internationally for her performance in the film, is another reason why the page should be kept. She starred in a music label produced by and sung by the national playback singing icons Papon and Shreya Ghoshal, respectively, again, proving why she needs such credibility.
Her decade-long career in the entertainment industry with international acclaim must be an inspiration rather than an ignorance or a deletion just because of the limited published sources, this might be a case of WP:BIAS/WP:SBEXT. I am literally voting for a KEEP of the page. The notice looks like nothing less than bullying and an attempt to neglect the regional talent. Girii101 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep — The page meets the General Notability Guidelines (GNG) and the specific criteria for creative artists (any actor who has played a lead role in a notable film). Helina Daimary played the central lead character (Preeti) in the highly notable Boro-language film Gorai Phakhri (Wild Swans), which won the Best Film award at the 29th Kolkata International Film Festival (KIFF) and premiered internationally at the Vancouver International Film Festival (VIFF). Her performance as the lead actor of a major award-winning regional film warrants a standalone biographical record under WP:ANYBIO, rather than a simple redirect. I am actively working on adding more independent regional coverage regarding her 2022 Best Actress win at the 4th Bodo Film Awards to further strengthen the article. Laogaa45 (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, WP:NACTOR does not say "any actor who has played a lead role in a notable film", but rather "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions"; note esp. the word "multiple", which is germane here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for the clarification, DoubleGrazing. The requirement for "multiple notable productions" under WP:NACTOR is precisely why this page warrants retention rather than deletion.
Beyond her central leading role as Preeti in the internationally acclaimed feature film Gorai Phakhri (2023), Helina Daimary has been a core, recurring leading face of the culturally landmark Hainamuli comedic film franchise. Her career spans across multiple prominent regional releases, including Hainamuli 6 (2016), Fwrmaiso Haywi Gwsw (2017), Rebgon(2018), etc (all verified and tracked within the List of Bodo-language films).
Transitioning from the region's most commercially successful multi-sequel comedy franchise to headlining a festival-winning, critically acclaimed feature film completely satisfies both the spirit and the exact wording of "significant roles in multiple notable films" under WP:NACTOR. Laogaa45 (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Please do not use LLM or other AI-based tools to generate your comments (or anything else for Wikipedia, for that matter). We are interested to hear your views, not what some algorithm thinks we should hear.
You only get to !vote once. Please strike or delete your second 'keep' !vote.
As for notability, the onus is on you as the author clearly to demonstrate that, and by and large it would be better to do so before publishing rather than after. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize for the repeated errors I previously committed. I have now updated her filmographies (excluding her music videos), as her appearances in various regional commercial films support her eligibility for an independent Wikipedia page. The fact that initial omission of her filmographies was due to the limited reliability of sources available for those regional films and movies. Thank you for your understanding. Laogaa45 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to inform you that the text has been updated to include her filmographies (excluding music videos) previously omitted due to concerns regarding the reliability of sources for those regional films. I apologize for any inconvenience and confusion this may have caused.
With the recent additions to her filmographies, I believe the page now meets all the necessary criteria for a Wikipedia entry. I kindly request that the deletion message be reconsidered and removed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Laogaa45 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wild Swans (2023 film)#Cast, a very notable film in which she plays the lead role and this, until or unless the notability of various other films/productions in which she plays lead/significant roles is established. WP:ATD-R applies. (But regarding the notability of the said films and even coverage about her, as we are here talking of Bodo cinema, this might be a case of WP:BIAS/WP:SBEXT, which is one more reason I favour a redirect)--~2026-34615-72 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for acknowledging the bias issues (WP:BIAS) inherent to coverage of indigenous regional cinema like Bodo-language films. While a redirect under WP:ATD-R is an alternative, a standalone article is fully justified here because the subject's cultural impact and career longevity across the region are well-established.
The Hainamuli series is widely recognized by cultural researchers as a foundational milestone that commercially sustained modern Bodo cinema during its transition into digital era. To reduce the leading actress of both the region's most iconic multi-sequel commercial franchise and its most internationally celebrated, award-winning feature film (Gorai Phakhri) to a mere redirect line would inadvertently compound the exact systemic bias noted under WP:BIAS.
Because her filmography proves a verifiable, that directly satisfies WP:NACTOR's "multiple notable productions" threshold when viewed through the lens of regional impact, a standalone biography remains the most encyclopedic outcome. Laogaa45 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Helina Daimary is a northeastern Indian regional artist from the state of Assam. The creator of the subject's page earlier had omitted her works and filmographies, which, however, had been added later. Upon communication with the creator, he stated the reason for the omission is that the regional artist has limited published sources.
One of the "reviewers" cited the page as the "violation" of the Wikipedia norms as per the WP:NACTOR as initially it was mentioned only the major internationally acclaimed film Gorai Phakhri. This was indeed the gap of communication regarding the necessity of such sources leading to calls for the page to be deleted or redirected. However suggesting that the page of a regional artist should be removeddue to the limited published sources is a clear case of WP:BIAS/WP:SBEXT.
Daimary's decade long career, which includes multiple projects, demonstrates why the page should be maintained rather than deleted or redirected. Such talent must be recognized and celebrated rather than neglected. Girii101 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Just too chaotic. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully asking the people voting Keep to please list the three best sources that, in your opinion, are independent of the actress, reliable, and substantive. No more LLM text please. Just a brief list of sources 1, 2, and 3 so we can look at them. Thank you. M kuhner (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Film that hasn't been shown to meet notability requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The subject film seemingly hasn't yet been released, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hasn't (yet) been widely distributed or received multiple full-length reviews in GNG-worthy publications, hasn't received a major award, doesn't appear to be taught as a subject in a film-study program at an accredited university, and doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria given in WP:NFILM. The sources in the article either don't mention the subject film at all, or only mention it trivially/in-passing. I can find no other sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic (only other passing mentions like this). The WP:COI and WP:LLM and related issues at play here do very little to help. At best this title could be WP:DRAFTIFIED until after it has actually been released. Personally I think it should be deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Page that was previously WP:BLAR as a redirect to Heliosphere#Structure on March 23rd. This was reverted on April 1st. The editor who redirected and the redirect editor opened a discussion on the talk page, but minimal input from involved editors there. Page currently has tags for AI and notability. Rather than leaving this hanging around much longer I am sending it to AfD for a wider discussion. Note: I am not voting as I do not know this science. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heliosphere and add a human-written summary of heliospheric models including Enlil. Fails WP:SIGCOV. For context, Enlil is one of many different models of the inner heliosphere used to propagate solar wind, CMEs, etc. from the upper corona to Earth and beyond. Enlil is perhaps the most widely known because it is relevant outside of academic research as one component of the WSA-Enlil model used by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center to provide space weather forecasts useful for affected industries, aurora chasers, etc. (MacNeice et al., 2018, ref 9 in the article, gives a comprehensive overview of the various models designed to provide solar wind forecasts. Table 1 therein gives 15 corona + inner heliosphere models that do not use Enlil at all.)
From my experience, the breadth of the likely LLM-aggregated sample of sources covering Enlil provided in the article is representative of the actual breadth of Enlil sources out there; that is, most secondary sources are either press releases about space weather/aurora or academic papers that mention Enlil as one component of a larger global solar wind model being studied (e.g., WSA-Enlil, WSA-Enlil+Cone, MAS-Enlil). I do not believe that this amounts to significant coverage sufficient to justify an article dedicated to Enlil alone. However, I think that Enlil is notable enough to cover together with other models in Heliosphere or something like Heliospheric models because such models, when coupled with corona and CME models, are an important tool for studying and predicting conditions in the heliosphere and, when considered together, do receive significant coverage.
Merge any relevant content with Heliosphere#Structure so that some of the worthwhile content is kept--aware some of it may be LLM generated but that doesn't mean with verifiable sources that it isn't worth preserving and re-written. Agnieszka653 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Coverage in article is largely WP:CORPTRIV, such as routine funding announcements, changes in leadership, quarterly financial reports, and acquisitions. Additionally, there are some WP:AISIGNS, such as a redlinked category on creation and ref 7 404ing. ScalarFactor (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it)02:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above votes boil down to "it exists, its products are used, and it makes a lot of money." The first two aren't notability, and the third is specifically called out in WP:NCORP as not establishing notability for a business. If there are sources which are independent (not the company itself, not interviews, not republished press releases, not business partners), reliable, and substantial, it would really help to provide a few examples. There is some coverage of a class-action lawsuit against them [15], but not convinced that this is SIGCOV: it hasn't been resolved. And if the company is only newsworthy due to this, that may be WP:ONEEVENT. If someone wants to try to rescue the article, though, this lawsuit issue is the best I could find. M kuhner (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. I don't see any solid evidence of LLM usage, and the incident has been covered in multiple news. It's also likely it will have a lasting impact in the history of US-Italy relations. Now, this is of course a biased assessment since we're in the midst of it; later we could well assess its relevance as secondary. But to merge/delete it now out of haste, only to then recreate it from scratch, seems to me a waste of time. Given that there are no serious grounds for deletion I'd wait and see, no prejudice for a renom later. --cyclopiaspeak!10:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unfortunately, this AI gets in everywhere, Google Translate is not reliable. Google Translate alters the translation in its own way. One part that was built with AI that was removed was the 'begged' issue. However, you removed parts that in my opinion were important and clarified the Italian position. Putting a merge makes no sense, the link is already there and this article is for more information. If we start thinning or removing some parts then the article no longer makes sense. Iran's ability to strike from Cyprus to Diego Garcia should have been left in because it was essential to the explanation. Furthermore, it does not seem that the crisis will end anytime soon. Rapidfirreee (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be updated with Rutte's new statements.
Merge, things like this are a big part of what these bilateral relations articles are for. We don't need separate articles every time there's a disagreement internationally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Let's keep this article separate from the Italy–United States relations, but let's complete and expand it with new developments in the crisis. On 2 July 2026, with the celebrations for the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence at Villa Taverna, Rome, the rift seems to have been resolved or healed.[16][17]
First they propose merge or delete then they don't continue with the article in updating it and disappear, only Martin Mystère and I updated it!! Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We continue with endless discussions and wastes of time. Time and quality information are wasted, and the history and conclusion aren't given the proper prominence. Thank goodness Martin Mystère did a good job, and I thank him, the only constructive contributor. Holy crap this damn Gemini inserted into Google Translate is an abomination Rapidfirreee (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This talking about what's basically a current event. Characterizing it as a diplomatic crisis is added undue weight and speculation to recent events and their significance. This falls under WP:NOTNEWS as again it's covering current events and is not giving an encyclopedic summary. It's also too early to tell whether this passes WP:GNG. As said before it could be merged into Italy-United States relations but I don't believe its necessary.AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one is actively contributing constructively to expanding the article, but the crisis doesn't seem to be resolved at all.[18] Trump continues to attack Meloni.[19]Rapidfirreee (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should wait for the NATO summit, since it wil be the first time Meloni and Trump meet after the G7 summit. Trump provoked Meloni again on Truth social. If Trump and Meloni clash again, and Italy recalls the ambassador or act in a similar way, then I would keep the article, otherwise, if the tensions finally calm down, I would merge. --Martin Mystère (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, you ignore the issue of Italy's failure to qualify and its admission to the World Cup instead of Iran. Paolo Zampolli and others intervened in favor of readmission. They acted by proposing the matter to FIFA, which ignored it. Trump didn't support it, if not outright opposed it, and the Minister of Sport deemed it unworthy and unsuitable. They wanted Iran at all costs, and the Iran players and coach, and so on were always unhappy. Iran at the World Cup was meant to bring peace, something that's still far from being the case, despite the propaganda.
For some, this is a marginal episode, but it was a foreshadowing of how the relationship would evolve. Then came ever new attacks on the ally. New attacks on the Prime Minister and Italy. Rapidfirreee (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be sufficient in-depth coverage of this seemingly minor in-house award to justify a standalone article, which is LLM-generated anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm going to remove the ai generated banner. Is that the only concern, or do you have further thoughts on WP:GNG as it applies here? Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we discuss the notability please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!08:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my !vote for now, there have been significant changes since I first looked at and I have not yet sufficiently evaluated to present version. ‑‑gurkubondinn08:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a run-of-the-mill award, as you imply here, are you able to show other such awards with as much (or more) coverage, from the same era? - Scarpy (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. That said, I've seen the discussion on the AI noticeboard and I must say I'm absolutely disgusted by the way the editor who authored the article has been treated. They acknowledged freely to have used Grammarly for light proofreading and that was it, there is no significant evidence to the contrary, and yet he was repeatedly harassed on the noticeboard until they left active editing. If there was any violation of LLM usage policy, that was utterly technical and not related to the real problems the LLM policy was meant to counter, that is a flood of an unreasonable amount of AI-slop articles impossible to verify. I am shocked by how LLM patrolling is creating a climate of suspicion and, now I see, driving away good faith editors. This is a shame that has nothing to do with keeping LLM at bay. --cyclopiaspeak!09:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are an issue, of course; they were an issue even much before LLMs (I'm here since 2004, I've always seen that happening). That doesn't change that such behavior is concerning, as much and more than LLM usage. cyclopiaspeak!08:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was clearly an accomplished legal professional, but that said I'm not finding RS to support notability. His name comes up a lot in Google search, but nearly all in trial documents - where he was doing his job. The obituaries are mostly from organizations he was associated with. I did find that he wrote some professional materials (see below), but I can't find more about them with one exception: The rights of railway workers which went to two editions. For most authors we usually require reviews or "best seller lists" and I can't find either.
North Country Lawyer DA Robb - Mich. BJ, 1985 - HeinOnline
Use of lay witnesses to prove medical testimony DA Robb - Prac. Law., 1962 - HeinOnline
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES 1963-1964 RE McKean, EA Blaty, RJ Osborne, JS Burak, DA Robb… - HeinOnline
Checklist: Plaintiff's Opening Statement Personal Injury Case D Robb - Guild Prac., 1966 - HeinOnline
Keep, seems to meet notability clearly to pass GNG. P.S. I was appalled when I saw the discussion on the AI Noticeboard - that is a ridiculous and in my opinion awful way to treat a seemingly good faith editor. Jishara (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on what's available: sources 2, 3 and 6, all legitimate obituaries, are three valid sources. Only source 1 appears to be clearly bogus; 4 and 5 might not be reliable. In this case, TNT would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: ? There seems to be a story here, but the sourcing isn't quite there. I don't find any about this person, but given the time for when they were active, probably in paper sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI Source Verification - Userscript that uses open-source models (Free!), Claude, Gemini (Free!) or ChatGPT to help check if a source supports a claim.
CitationVerification - Python script that uses MiniCheck and Claude to check if a source supports a claim.
Shoe company Allbirds announces it will be pivoting to providing computing infrastructure for artificial intelligence, with plans to rename itself to "NewBird AI". The company's shares rose nearly 600% on the news. (CNBC)
