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.
American geographer (BLP). It is not clear to me that he meets WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC. The article is clearly AI-generated (as indicated by the tag), and in my view should probably be deleted on notability grounds. (Normally I would draftify an article like this, but it is too old for draftifying.) Dionysodorus (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fails WP:GNG with a reliance on unreliable sources like those in WP:VG/S. I'm not seeing anything that makes this materially stronger than the 2025 AFD. Note this is a series article: there is some metacommentary cited but neither the individual games nor the series is adequately described by reliable sources. I will post a source analysis below. VRXCES (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
IGN and KotakuN These are landing pages using game metadata. There is no coverage to mention at all. This source should not be used at all.
Rysjedal, Gard & Pyke This is a conference paper. Pyke has a PhD in digital culture at UIB. Note context of research and WP:SCHOLARSHIP is highly relevant here. I think this source is helpful as commentary about the series' setting and themes, and analysis of its proposed categorisation as 'mascot horror', which is a concept ideated by the authors. But I strongly consider this paper should not be used to anchor notability and statements of fact about the games. The article is cited seven times and the most-cited source.
The authors are transparent that statements of fact about the game partially come from unreliable and user-generated sources. Findings were documented through fieldnotes of YouTube videos, fanwikis, fan videos, fan theory communities...
The Xbox Hub, Movies Games and Tech, Nintendo Everything and Pure NintendoN These are from unreliable sources per WP:VG/S.
JimquisitionWP:VG/S suggests this is a situational source and is appropriate to confining use to Sterling's opinions as a WP:SPS. She is unambiguously a subject matter expert. The source is fine for the opinions that the games and series are inauthentic in their execution.
Screen Rant is considered "marginally reliable" per WP:VG/S. I'm not sure what you use this for though other than 'mascot horror' genre identification, its rating and a general point that the game may not be appropriate. In typical WP:VALNET fashion, the source never directly answers its own headline, so as an opinion it's pretty weak.
Comment The article creator was told to stop submitting this article at AFC following a reject; they decided to forge ahead and create nine articles that now will take some time and effort to remove. Welcome any advice or guidance that could be given to avoid that situation in future. VRXCES (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom and WP:SALT, fails notability. Furthermore the creator should be sanctioned and their other similar articles deleted per WP:NOTHERE as they are attempting to spam the project. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
LLM use is a virtual certainty - the articles are full of mealy-mouthed WP:AIWEASEL words. For instance, in the main article for the series, one review is described as a "critical analysis" which "criticized the franchise in the context of the mascot horror genre and discussed its production and approach to the genre". The actual text of the review described the games as "absolute shit", "trash", and "inept, obnoxious, and above all, lazy" - the summary in the article is not at all reflective of this opinion. Omphalographer (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Procedurally, a cleaner solution to all of this could have been a PROD in that case. I apologise I have taken the more cumbersome approach. VRXCES (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Would a PROD even have been allowed given it was deleted previously? Its creation is de facto an objection to that deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There are also red categories in f.ex. Diff/1372078378 and Special:Diff/1372078672. You would expect someone to at least create those categories after adding the articles to them. The user has evidently worked out how to create articles to paste the declined drafts into, so it isn't a lack of technical understanding. More likely is not being aware that the pages are in those categories in the first place, because adding them wasn't an actual decision by the user.
Added together with the unreasonably rapid editing, promotional language and source integrity issues, it is hard to come up with another rational explanation for all of it. This being generated by an LLM is indeed a virtual certainty in my opinion. ‑‑gurkubondinn23:56, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That would also require them to not be LLM-generated. But they are, so they are incompatible with the encyclopaedia. There is no material here that can be merged into an article without that article itself being LLM-generated, which would either just land us back here again or require a trip to AIN before LLMPROD could be applied to that article, and the merging editor would be on the hook for introducing NOLLM failures in article space.
If this franchise is notable on its own terms, someone else can (and probably will) write a new article about it. Thats not a reason to keep AI-junk around. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Riddled with WP:AISIGNS (even in the latest revision which I reverted), authored as an autobiography by the article subject, and no sign of notability; all of the "significant coverage" provided is of dubious independence because it extensively relies on interviews with Chiang and all conspicuously namedrops his at-the-time-upcoming exhibition "Makaras and Motordops: Joshua Chiang’s 10-Year Journey". I'm astounded this passed AfC; even if not deleted it should be sent back to AfC. Athanelar (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I was the one who accepted this a while ago; egg on my face. I don't remember doing so tbh lol. I was new to AFC at the time and would not accept it now. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I understand that the article would be deleted. I would like to point out that the reason why several of the articles converge on that one particular exhibition is because while I had quietly built a name for myself in the small arts community in Cambodia, it was the first major exhibition featuring only my works, and given the size of the arts community, it is bound to attract coverage from the few English news websites in Cambodia. If the editors consider that the milestones mentioned do not meet the criteria for notability, that's fine, but I take issue with the characterisation that they are "of dubious independence because it extensively relies on interviews with Chiang and all conspicuously namedrops his at-the-time-upcoming exhibition ". I do not have editorial control over the contents of the three articles mentioned in the citation.
In the rewrite, I referred to several Wikipedia biographies for style and structure. If they are riddled with WP:AISIGNS as alleged, @Athanelar I would ask them to point out which sentences raised the red flag and if they could rewrite said sentences in a manner that does not suggest they are AI-assisted.
I had asked for a review of said article in good faith specifically because I want independent objective eyes to look through it, and I had been very transparent about the COI and the fact that the first version was AI-assisted (as I was unaware that you can't even use AI for formatting and checking and accept their suggestions for edits). Instead I had been met with unfounded allegations. I can accept the deletion graciously, but not the allegations. Joshua Chiang (artist) (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete I will not contest the deletion of said article. In fact I would second it. But not for the reasons that @Athanelar stated. If I made a mistake precisely because I wanted the article to be Wikipedia compliant and submitted it for publication just shortly after the rules against AI-assisted writing were announced and have been taking stands to correct the article precisely because I want to be compliant and transparent, only to have my act of good faith constantly second-guessed no matter how I tried to clarify, then I would rather have it removed, than have bad-faith allegations against me remain alongside the article. The only reason why I wrote it was because I had been involved in so many things in Singapore and Cambodia that I wanted interested people to have a page to make the connection between all the things they may have read about me in one space. If it were for self-aggrandization, I would not have included the citation to the less-than-flattering review of an early movie I directed.
Possibly LLM-generated article, but the reason I propose deletion is simple lack of notability. This is just one of dozens of WP:ROTM Residence Inn properties operated by Marriott, and it's only received the kind of trivial local coverage that any new big construction project would get in a city of Berkeley's size. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
delete very much run of the mill hotel, there thousands of this exact model all over North America. Could be better served on Wiki Travel. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I did not find any source that meets GNG for this Israeli water polo referee. The references in the article are full of appointments to tournaments and lists of officials. Enos733 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, fails NOLLM. The initial revision has references that don't exist. The first one that I checked returns 404 not found, and has never been saved by archive.org.‑‑gurkubondinn15:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No evidence of notability for this water polo referee. The only pieces of independent coverage are quick three- or four-sentence blurbs like 1, 2, and 3, which consist of routine coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The previous AfD did not analyse any of the sources used, as suggested by Boynamedsue. I also have concerns of LLM usage due to language and certain citations failing verification. JTtheOG (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The best source is one Pelop.gr article with shallow interview-based coverage and a rather non-independent-sounding tone, which is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've removed most of this article as part of the presumptive removal of LLM-generated content of the recent edits made by Giovanni Messe aka Archivio Italia (see AI cleanup investigation), who in the meanwhile has been blocked. What it's left are the parts that in the meanwhile have been partially reworded by other users (but please note that according to "who wrote that" the parts written by original author still account for 79% of the article). Now, some of the surviving parts are simply a rewording from Roman Republic (1849–1850). These parts are the less problematic, but obviously it wouldn't make sense to have an article made only of a copy of parts of another article. Unfortunately the other parts that are still there (in particular the paragraph "Initial assualts on Rome") seem to have been written through LLMs and the users who modified them have apparently only fixed the style but not the substance. For example, if I take the note number 15, I should find a page about Garibaldi's defence of Rome against Oudinot. But if I take a look at the indicated book and I go to page 227 (as written in the note), then I find a totally different topic (Garibaldi in the assembly of the Republic). The topic of the article is obviously notable, but I think that it'd be quicker to blow it up and start over, rather than checking the unreviewed (or at the very least unsufficiently reviewed) outcome of an LLM --Friniate ✉ 15:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The original editor, after promising to not add more articles and clean up LLM hallucinations, has not done so and has been blocked. Very clearly falls under WP:AIPROD. Upon first glance its clear on GPTZero but as stated previously its more about the hallucinations. I agree, lets blow it up and start over. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are already articles about the combatants. Most of this article is a rehearsal of the history surrounding the event. The meat of this article could easily be incorporated at its parent articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nom, articles like these are timesinks forced on the community by users that refuse to follow the guidelines. Let's not waste more time than absolutely needed on this, blow it up and then move on. If anyone wants to start over because they are interested in writing about the subject, they should have a clean slate to start from. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This BLP does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Two of the sources are about the same hotel detaining incident, where he gets a single sentence identifying him as one of several journalists who had their equipment confiscated. The third source just indicates that he was detained again after the hotel incident and then released. There is very little that can be verified about him besides the fact that he is a journalist involved in this one event in December 2019. I could not turn up any significant coverage in my before. He is not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia; I do not see a suitable merge or redirect target. Article also appears to be AI-generated. Zzz plant (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sourcing is too weak for a WP:BLP that has substantial potentially-contentious material. I removed some potentially-contentious material cited to weak sources (see page history), but the rest is still mainly based on brief mentions and TV show interviews. I don't think it adds up to WP:NBASIC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep – Johnson appears to satisfy WP:NBASIC through independent, published coverage concerning him across several distinct periods. The Courier-Journal published a staff-written profile centered on Johnson in 1975, rather than merely mentioning him in connection with another subject. The National Catholic Reporter subsequently devoted several paragraphs to Johnson's imprisonment, parole circumstances and stated religious change in 2003. Both articles predate his television notoriety and are unrelated to the later viral interview.
Additional independent coverage includes The Atlantic discussing and quoting Johnson in its 2010 analysis of Lockup, a The Root article focused directly on him in 2015, and the Public Interest Law Reporter discussing his interview and its parody in The Boondocks in 2019. WP:NBASIC expressly permits multiple independent sources containing non-trivial but individually less-than-substantial coverage to be considered together. Taken collectively, these sources provide coverage appearing in 1975, 2003, 2010, 2015 and 2019—a span of more than four decades.
This is therefore not a conventional WP:BLP1E biography. The first condition of BLP1E requires reliable sources to cover the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the sources address Johnson's juvenile incarceration, later parole circumstances and stated religious change, television appearance, release and subsequent cultural reception during different periods. The concerns about explicit material derived from primary or weak interview sources are legitimate WP:BLP content concerns, and removing that material was appropriate. However, those problems can be addressed through trimming and reliance on the independent sources above, consistent with WP:ATD, rather than deleting a biography whose subject has received non-trivial independent coverage over several decades.
Note regarding the SPA observation: The contribution history of temporary or single-purpose accounts is separate from the subject's notability. WP:SPA itself states that comments consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should receive full weight regardless of an SPA tag, and it advises editors to focus on the subject matter rather than the person. This recommendation rests on the independent sources and policy analysis above, not on the identities or presumed motives of the editors who found those sources. ~2026-46526-01 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Dreamyshade: I disagree with the decision to collapse my Keep comment under WP:AITALK. That guideline says comments may be collapsed when they are “obviously generated (not merely refined)” by an LLM. Your message to me, however, only said that my comment “seemed” to be AI-generated. Those are different standards, and no specific evidence has been provided showing that my comment was obviously generated.
That distinction is important. Saying that something “seemed” AI-generated is an expression of suspicion. WP:AITALK uses the considerably stronger standard of “obviously generated (not merely refined)”. If there are specific characteristics, diffs, or other evidence demonstrating that this standard has actually been met, those should be identified so that other editors can evaluate the determination rather than simply being asked to accept an assumption about how the comment was written.
There is also an involvement concern here. You are the editor who nominated this article for deletion, and you then personally collapsed the opposing Keep argument with a template stating that it should be excluded from the assessment of consensus. I am not alleging bad faith, but I do think this creates at minimum an appearance of bias when the nominator is also making the determination that an opposing argument should be disregarded.
This is more than a simple formatting decision because the practical effect is that an argument opposing the position taken by the nominator is marked so that it should not be considered when consensus is assessed. Given that circumstance, I believe it is reasonable for the decision to exclude that argument to be reviewed independently.
WP:TPO cautions against involved parties using collapse templates to end discussion over the objections of other editors. I recognize that WP:AITALK separately allows comments which actually meet its LLM standard to be collapsed. The question here is therefore not whether WP:AITALK can ever justify a collapse, but whether this particular comment has actually been shown to satisfy its “obviously generated” threshold.
Given your involvement as the nominator, I believe an uninvolved editor should review whether this comment actually meets WP:AITALK's “obviously generated” standard rather than having that determination rest solely with an editor advocating for deletion.
I am also concerned about the treatment of a new/temporary editor here. The nomination itself raised the fact that temporary accounts have focused on this subject, but WP:SPA specifically cautions editors to assume good faith, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. It also states that comments which comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines should receive appropriate weight regardless of an SPA label, and advises editors to focus on the subject matter rather than the person.
Working primarily on one article or one subject, particularly as a new editor, does not by itself demonstrate improper conduct. The substance of the contribution should still be evaluated. An argument does not lose its merit simply because the editor making it has a short or narrowly focused editing history.
WP:BITE is relevant for the same reason. A new editor made a detailed Keep argument based on specific sources and Wikipedia policies. Rather than addressing those sources and arguments on their merits, attention has shifted to the editor's account history and an unsupported allegation that the comment was AI-generated.
The sequence of events is what makes this concerning: the editor's temporary/SPA status was raised, the opposing Keep argument was then characterized as AI-generated without specific supporting evidence being identified, the argument was collapsed so that it would not be considered in assessing consensus, and an AI-related warning was then placed on the editor's talk page.
The collapsed comment was not merely an unsupported “Keep” vote. It presented specific sources and policy-based arguments concerning WP:NBASIC, WP:BLP1E, WP:ATD, and WP:SPA. If those sources are inadequate, or if those policies have been interpreted incorrectly, those are legitimate issues to challenge within the AfD. The sourcing and policy arguments should be addressed on their merits.
WP:AGF also says that doubts about another editor's conduct should be supported with specific diffs and relevant evidence. An allegation that an editor improperly used generative AI concerns that editor's conduct. If there is specific evidence showing that this comment was obviously generated, please provide it so that other editors can evaluate it.
Otherwise, I request that the collapse be reviewed by an uninvolved editor and that the Keep argument be restored for consideration on its merits. I am not alleging harassment based on a single interaction, but I do believe the combination of the SPA characterization, the AI accusation, the talk-page warning, and the removal of an opposing argument raises legitimate concerns under WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and the cautions contained in WP:SPA.
If this type of conduct were to become a repeated pattern toward the same editor, that could raise additional concerns under Wikipedia's conduct policies. At this point, however, I am asking for a straightforward procedural remedy rather than making an accusation of harassment.
Accordingly, I believe the fairest solution is for an uninvolved editor to review the collapse and independently determine whether WP:AITALK's “obviously generated (not merely refined)” standard has actually been met. If it has not, the Keep comment should be restored and its sources and policy arguments should be evaluated as part of the AfD consensus.
Ultimately, this AfD should be decided based on the article, the available reliable sources, and the applicable notability and deletion policies—not assumptions about the contributor who presented an opposing argument.
I think any uninvolved editor will assume any post is AI if it's as long as what you just pasted with those bolded phrases, stern imperative phrases and that alphabet soup of policy links. Speak for yourself, it can be done. Here2rewrite (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep – He is a former prisoner and author who was featured in the documentary series Lockup and later parodied in The Boondocks. There is also newspaper coverage of him going all the way back to the 1970s. This shows he has received coverage for decades and has also become part of popular culture. I think that is enough to show he is notable.~2026-46526-01 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet. ‑‑gurkubondinn00:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is AI-generated and fails NOLLM. Incontrovertible AISIGNS were just inserted by the TA in AbuseLog/44977289, and all of the TAs appear to be connected. No prejudice against someone else writing a new article about this person, should they be notable. ‑‑gurkubondinn15:35, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Admin note I've gone ahead and restored the redirect as the TAs (and only keep !vote) adding the new content have admitted to being a banned editor.-- Ponyobons mots18:10, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Reverted incontrovertibly AI-generated changes from a major contributor to the article in Diff/1371631856 (AbuseLog/44977082), the same user that created the article in 2017. I suspect that AI use goes back further than the revision that I reverted to.
The company is described as [enabling] businesses and organization of all sizes to use the latest innovations in Human Language Technology and Conversational AI,..., but the recent changes (in revision 1371634305) described the company as a software company that ...provides a resident communication and engagement platform for affordable housing, public housing authorities, and senior living communities. Both versions sound like vague corporate AI descriptions, but they also sound like they are describing different companies.
The sources in the article are either primary sources (the company's own website, inaccessible for me but is saved on archive.org) or Voicebot.ai (which seems to largely be an WP:RSML source). I have not found any WP:INDEPENDENT news coverage showing WP:SIGCOV.
Draft:Gopal Snacks exists and was rejected declined at AfC review on the same day when this article was created; because of it I am not able to dratify. Also, the current article was created using an LLM. Charlie (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete: this would certainly appear to be the same subject as the first nomination from 2024 that ended in deletion. There's probably no G4 factor here nonetheless, but an LLM-generated article on a subject previously deleted at AfD for lack of notability that ended up bypassing AfC at the last second (the draft appears to have been declined–not rejected, which is a distinct and stronger action at AfC–due to the article being created, not the other way around) does not inspire confidence that any good reason to keep the page exists. WCQuidditch☎✎21:05, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Does not pass WP:GNG. They do not inherit the notability of the books they've published; all sourcing in the article is either primary, about books they've published with no commentary on the company, or about things that their books are about and does not mention them at all. This does not help notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(note, this is the page creator). There is not a single source in the article that helps GNG or WP:NCORP, all are primary, unreliable, do not mention them, or do not cover them substantially. The changes did not improve this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I did a major cleanup of the article by stripping a promo tone, del authors' achievements to fix WP:INHERITED issues, scaled back the page to a neutral fact-based stub, and cleaned up Refs. AuthorAuthor3 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Update: I added a Psychology Today reference, a reliable source, that covers the founding and business model of WildBlue Press to address the WP:NCORP concern. With this addition, I ask that the closing administrator consider the current state of this Wikipedia stub.AuthorAuthor3 (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. Of the sourcing in the current revision, ref 1 is a deadlink that goes to the front page of an AI company, with the intended target being some sort of listicle, ref 3 is a review of a book by the publisher, and refs 2 and 4 are primary sources. None of this contributes to notability. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This whole article feels LLM generated and I don't think the subject is notable. The sources talk about things that are related to this, but not precisely *this* subject. It's also more of an essay. Don't think it is in scope for Wikipedia. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are plenty of secondary sources available about this subject, but it largely overlaps with the existing article at software supply chain and should be covered there (WP:OVERLAP). I may reuse some of the citations to flesh out that article, but I also agree with the LLM-generated concern and don't intend to copy-paste anything I haven't rewritten myself. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment I wrote this article entirely on my own. However, after receiving the first comment about AI, I rewrote every paragraph that raised concerns for three AI detectors. I would appreciate it if you could provide more specific feedback on this matter. Regarding the comment about the essay-like style, more specific guidance would also help me focus on targeted edits. As for the value of transparency, it is indeed closely linked to the software supply chain, but I believe the concept is broad enough to warrant a standalone article as one of the key principles of security. In fact, besides secondary sources, there is a book and studies 1, 2, and 3 that directly address this topic. A subsection within a general article on the software supply chain does not allow for a thorough exploration of this topic or would make the article excessively long. Cyberkiborg (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I will take into account the guidelines regarding the use of AI, as stated here, on the article page, and in other discussion. I will either remove the toolbox entirely or revise it once I get clarification on the rules I requested in another discussion, as I originally thought I was working within the permitted scope. I will completely rewrite this article, both in structure and content; I still believe it has standalone significance, not just within the context of the Software supply chain article. To this end, I’ve already ordered books and am studying academic papers I hadn’t come across before, as much as my schedule allows. If I realize that the significance I perceive isn’t there, I’ll create a detailed section for the main article. To evaluate any results—both in terms of significance and AI footprint—I’ll invite participants from this and other discussions who’d like to get involved. But I have a feeling this won’t be a quick task; life and work don’t leave me much time. I’m aiming for two to three weeks (I had hoped to finish this work yesterday, but I overestimated both my own capabilities and the scope of the work—there’s too much new material, not to mention family and work). Accordingly, if a decision is made to delete it due to lack of significance, please don’t delete it entirely—instead, kindly move it to draft. Some of the information will be useful to me, and it will reduce the formatting work on the remaining sections. I’ll be writing this by hand and rephrasing what’s already there, but if you have any specific comments on what you see as signs of AI—please let me know; that will also simplify the work and reduce the number of questions in the future.Cyberkiborg (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)reply
I think gptzero 100% AI rate is not conclusive proof, your ai detector can be unreliable and produce false positives, however I have removed all generic words. Sokoreq (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - May be you are mistaken because KAL is a different, its an Indian system developed by IG Defence, while the HESA Shahed 136 is an Iranian system developed by Shahed Aviation! Sokoreq (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sokoreq It is only a copied version of the Shahed-136. Such versions do not need a separate Wikipedia article unless there is enough significant, independent coverage about them. WP:DILIGENCE also suggests that there is not enough information about this drone variant. Can you provide a source analysis showing why this article should be kept? Charlie (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@CharlieMehta Again maybe you are being confus, because their concepts are similar as KAL is a long range, one-way attack (“kamikaze”) drone intended for deep strikes, yes broadly the same category as the Iranian Shahed-136, but saying its a copy of the Shahed-136 is not true,
Do you have any relibe source, which verify your clam that it's 100% copy of Shahed-136?
Because “copy” is a stronger claim if you don't have evidence, and (IG Defence) Its manufacturer says in india today 1 "it is not a copy or replication of Shahed but it is a Shahed class, next gen concept inspired by the same warfare mode"
(Maybe you lack the expertise of this subject, so appearances can be misleading, because KAL has a delta or flying-wing configuration, making comparisons to the Shahed-136 understandable, but similar aerodynamics don’t prove the design, software, propulsion, guidance, or manufacturing process was copied, I hope you understand!)
Also WP:DILIGENCE is not a tool which generates suggestions, maybe you didn't check manually, however there are enough independent, reliable sources about this drone variant to meet WP:GNG, and i will do add more reliable sources in the article, also provide a source analysis. Sokoreq (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Independent news coverage which was published by The Week.
Its an established Indian news magazine.
The article is specifically about to KAL (drone) and discusses its development, and other capabilities and potential export to Gulf countries.
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep subject meets WP:GNG. Please refer to the source assessment table above, where reliable, independent media discuss this specific drone variant in detail and establish notability,
Source 1 is the original source behind the March 2026 churnalism, while Sources 2 and 3 (SOURCE 10 in the table) are part of the August 2026 churnalism. Please check the revised source analysis below. Charlie (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
These ten articles/sources shared by the Sokoreq are definitely not ten independent sources as they claim. Per WP:CHURNDET, identical spec blocks, target lists, and quotes by company executives across multiple media outlets in extremely close timeframe mean none of these articles independently establish KAL. Charlie (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Charlie, first WP:CHURNDET is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and identical facts aren't automatically evidence of churnalism iff KAL has stated their range of 1000 km, multiple journalists can independently report 1000 km,
and even mere presence of identical specifications, or company quotations does not by itself establish churnalism, and yes the essay (CHURNDET) itself says "journalists routinely quote company representatives."
I do agree that sources 9 and 10 may be derive from the same company public announcement and should not be treated as two independent sources for the same factual claims, still, that does not establish that Sources 1 to 8 are likewise worthless,
and please don't take all burden of this discussion on yourselves, Let others contribute to this discussion.Sokoreq (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not independent. Rewrites an IG Defence announcement; facts and quotes are from founder Bodhisattwa Sanghapriya and company VP Maj Gen R. C. Padhi (retd). No MoD, service, or third-party verification. Same packaged language as the 6 Mar Hindu Business Line article that openly cites “a statement.” Per WP:CHURN / WP:CHURNDET and WP:INDEPENDENT.
~Business Standard is generally reliable, but this piece is uncritical churnalism of vendor claims (range, endurance, “define future warfare”). Reliable for “the company said,” not for the capability itself (WP:RSCONTEXT).
KAL is the sole subject, but the depth is a recycled brief, not independent analysis.
Not independent. Near-verbatim reuse of the same IG Defence brief as SOURCE 1: Shahed frame, 1,000 km / 3–5 hour specs, target list, and the Padhi “home-grown capability” / Atmanirbhar Bharat quotes.
~India Today is generally reliable. This article adds no independent reporting or fact-check of the claimed performance.
Directly about Project KAL, but an another version of the company handout rather than original coverage.
Not independent. Repeats the same Padhi quote already published in SOURCE 1/SOURCE 2. Company backgrounder material (founders, retired officers, planned plants). Sloppy mixing of KAL and Sheshnag specs shows processing of packaged copy, not reporting.
~The Times of India is usable with caution. This article is a rewrite of vendor talking points, not a checked technical report.
~ Names KAL and some claimed specs, but splits attention with Sheshnag-150 and does not go beyond the press line.
~ Broader round-up of Indian one-way-attack programmes and the Iran/Shahed news peg. The KAL sentences still repeat the unverified 1,000 km / 3–5 hour company line; no independent confirmation of KAL.
India Today is an established publication. Context on other systems is stronger than the KAL paragraph.
~ KAL is one programme among several (Sheshnag, Nagastra, SkyStriker). Passing-to-moderate mention, not in-depth independent coverage of KAL.
~ Closest to real journalism in this set: Covers Op Sindoor, Electronic warfare, Rajnath Singh, multiple firms. The KAL block is still an interview with the IG Defence CEO selling swarm numbers and “what comes after Shahed.” Independent of the company for the industry frame; not independent for KAL’s claimed performance.
Magazine feature in a generally reliable outlet, with named officials and a wider reporting base than the March briefs.
~ Discusses KAL as one part of a national drone ecosystem, not a dedicated independent treatment of the platform.
Event write-up of IG Defence’s stall at North Tech Symposium. Specs (1,000 km, 7–8 hours, 200 kg, 50 kg warhead, cameras, SATCOM, RATO) and JWALA data are company-supplied. COAS “appreciated” a display is not independent evaluation.
~ Generally reliable paper publishing an uncritical spec sheet. Endurance quietly changes from 3–5 hours (March) to 7–8 hours with no reported test to explain it.
Substantial product copy on KAL, sourced to the manufacturer.
Corporate pipeline story built on CEO quotes: ₹10,000 crore by FY30, “only domestic player” over 1,000 km, export talks, 100,000-drone target. WP:PRIMARY, WP:PROMO.
~ Usable for “IG Defence claims a pipeline,” not for treating those claims as established fact.
~ KAL is a supporting example in a company-growth article, not the primary subject.
Founder profile / access interview with Sanghapriya. Origin story, funding, growth percentages, and portfolio claims come from the company. Not independent of the subject.
~Outlook Business is a mainstream magazine; this piece is hagiographic startup coverage, not a check of KAL.
~ Feature on IG Defence; KAL is mentioned inside the portfolio, not examined in depth.
States that “the company said in a statement Wednesday.” CEO quote matches the IG Defence press release republished the same day (e.g. IDRW, labelled “Company Press Release” ... not able to add this link in the table as it is blacklisted across wikipedia). Officials told ThePrint it is “fully developed and tested”... still the seller.
~ThePrint is generally reliable. This item is a same-day press-release story with light extra context (other Indian Shahed-class efforts).
Focused on KAL export talks, but those talks are asserted only by IG Defence.
Same-day rewrite of the same export press release as SOURCE 9. Same specs and Sanghapriya quotes (“milestone,” “trusted partner,” “export powerhouse”).
~The Week is an established magazine; this article does not independently verify range, lethality, testing, or Gulf negotiations.
KAL-focused, but the substance is the company’s media handout.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Strong delete per the cogent source analysis by CharlieMehta. WP:PRODUCT/WP:ORGCRIT has strict prohibition on using sources derived or potentially derived from press releases. The similarities are close enough that these materials clearly fail the WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE guideline. We must be strict here in order to comply with out notability guidelines for products, and more broadly WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Yikes, this is a mess. Large sections of the article appear to be have be LLM generated or processed. More generally, the article covers both tooth brushing and professional dental cleaning; I'm not sure the latter would be appropriate at the merge target. Omphalographer (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: for what it's worth, given the LLM concerns that were brought up, the article itself has been around since 2003 (of course, that is not a reason to retain an article on its own), so in theory there's almost certainly a non-LLM version to reinstate at best (but this appears to not be the rationale for the nomination itself). No opinion on the proposal itself or anything else. WCQuidditch☎✎21:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge as initially proposed (to Tooth brushing). I accept that the meaning of 'cleaning' is broader, but WP:COMMONNAME suggests 'brushing' would be the least startling topic for readers. There could be a separate section on types of cleaning other than brushing. Klbrain (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There's a consensus to merge, but is it tooth brushing -> teeth cleaning or vice versa? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)reply
probably LLM output. checking all the sources all but one did exist but none appeared to be actually relevant to the sentence the sources were citing daysantdevtalk19:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Did you perform a brief google search first before nominating? The first result is this . While it's not significant, it's something to improve the existing sources. HOWEVER, there's not much more reliable sources to find unless we find it in their language, which might be a pain. For now, it's notable enough to keep the article. ~ Elisapoly (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article was rewritten, and many portions of it were removed, after I deletion nomination. It is now improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs)
Insignificant monarch, and possibly AI hallucinations, such as this source never mentions his inscriptions let alone about himself in the given cited pages and other sources only mentions the inscription, is that all we have? An inscription and 2 liner coverage with AI speech? Vasilystepanov (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. He's mentioned briefly in reliable sources such as Encyclopædia Iranica () and here and there in different Google Books, so he's not an AI hallucination. As for the sig coverege, there's a lot about him in a book "The Art of Eastern India, 300-800" (; I've counted 41 mentions without the endnotes) by an art historian. Loosewind (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Iranica: Ādityasena, a king of the Later Gupta, performed the aśvamedha. You want to have article on the basis of these 2 lines? WP:GNG is no joke. If there's no AI hallucinations then find me his mentions on cited pp. 119-120. The source you have cited does not yield a total coverage of even half a page of his 33 mentions. Vasilystepanov (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We don't need articles on every "real king" untill & unless they are notable enough to have a standalone page, in this case, it's not. Wyvern-999 (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete and WP:TNT. I am unable to find further context regarding this historical figure other than his inscription; redirecting to Aphsad inscription of Ādityasena may be best for now. @Ixudi: Have you used AI to draft this page? If so, please disclose it, as we are unable to verify the content using the cited sources. Wyvern-999 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 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.
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
