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.
Seems like this is a WP:LLMT probably from es.wiki which has imported the referencing code including improbable dates in the code "Retrieved 7 December 2019" for a page created here in 2026 suggesting that at best the references have not been checked and at worst the page is the result of an llm. JMWt (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if you or anyone else would like to rewrite the page from scratch, checking each and all references to show that they are being cited correctly and to the standards of en.wiki then that's absolutely fine. But we cannot and do not keep poor pages on the off chance that someone eventually might tidy them up because that undermines the foundations of this encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The page otherwise seems fine, and the "retrieved by" dates are of no import to readers. This does not seem like a deletion worthy major issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a sound nomination rationale. Per WP:NOLLM, translated content that did not follow the LLM-assisted translation policy is prohibited. The policy requires editors to check all the sources, which means that dates a link was retrieved can and should be updated, and thus outdated retrieved dates serve as evidence the policy was not followed. We cannot ask volunteers to manually check all the links if the content creators are unwilling to, and thus violations of WP:NOLLM are appropriate for deletion as content that should not appear in mainspace. There is nothing disruptive about this nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well worth revisiting this AfD. The previous AfD was closed as 'keep' seemingly based on a rationale given by an editor now blocked for UPE, and another editor simply echoing that user's rationale. Especially worth noting given that the article was created as Mainul Ahsan Nobel, a title variant to avoid the salting on Mainul Ahsan Noble. Athanelar (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—although I think the article could also be kept by removing material that failed verification and cleaning up unencyclopedic language. The author was blocked on UPE and LLM use grounds, and I believe the article shows signs of LLM use—for example the phrases "several media outlets reported" and "The comments generated public debate and criticism and were widely reported in the media." I also think it's odd that his marriage to the complainant in the 2025 case was referred to as "later personal developments". Going through the citations, I found and tagged three instances where the references failed to verify the material. —Em-as-in-emily (talk)03:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keyence The TA puts it best; there's an article to be had here, but it shouldn't be made up solely of LLM output. Nathannah • 📮01:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep, second choice Merge to Keyence. The article has been substantially rewritten since the AfD nomination, addressing both the WP:NCORP concerns from the nominator and the "AI slop" / "LLM output" concerns from subsequent commenters. Independent secondary source coverage now spans four categories:
Real-estate trade press (subject = Keyence Corporation of America): REBusinessOnline (2019), REJournals (2019), and CoStar (2016). Three independent publications reporting multi-million-dollar Itasca lease transactions with named brokerage firms, lease terms, and building specs, going beyond routine corporate disclosure.
Government records (subject = Keyence Corporation of America): Village of Itasca Ordinance No. 1835-16 (2016) and a zoning memorandum (2020). Independent municipal records of the company's physical operations.
Federal court records (subject = Keyence Corporation of America): Three U.S. district courts (D. Minn. 2011, S.D. Ind. 2022, E.D. Tex. 2024) have docketed cases naming Keyence Corporation of America as a U.S. legal party, confirming the entity's independent legal significance through public-record sources.
Industry trade-press recognition with multi-decade continuous coverage: a Quality Magazine 2010 in-depth product report including a direct-quoted interview with Keyence Corporation of America's Michael Montgomery (then assistant technical marketing manager); a 2015 Quality Magazine product article; Control Engineering (2009); Vision Systems Design coverage of the 2015 Innovators Award Gold-level honor; Automation World company profile with product and operations details; and Electronic Specifier.
On the "LLM output" / "AI slop" concern (WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:HEY): Writing style is a cleanup issue, not a notability issue. The current revision removed promotional phrasing, restructured the body around independently verifiable secondary sources, and trimmed the parent-company filler. Reviewers are invited to assess the cleaned-up version against the AfD bar rather than the version originally nominated.
On WP:NOTINHERITED: The article does not rely on parent-company notability. Each source category above independently documents the U.S. subsidiary's legal entity, U.S. operations, U.S. presence, and U.S. legal proceedings, separate from any inherited notability of the Japanese parent. A previously cited Bloomberg article focused on the Japanese parent has been removed from the body to keep the scope cleanly KCOA-specific.
On WP:CORPDEPTH: Coverage extends beyond routine product announcements. The 2019 REBusinessOnline article alone contains (a) named brokerage firms representing both landlord and tenant, (b) specific lease size and term, (c) building specifications, and (d) tenant-positioning language, meeting the "deep or significant coverage" requirement. The 2010 Quality Magazine interview adds depth on business model and product strategy.
On WP:AUD: Sources span national audiences (Forbes for industry context) and specialized industry audiences (Quality Magazine, Control Engineering, Vision Systems Design, Automation World, REBusinessOnline), satisfying the diversity requirement.
Note on sourcing: Several commercial market-research analyst URLs were considered during drafting but multiple of those domains are on en.wikipedia's spam blacklist and were therefore not included. The article relies on industry trade publications, real-estate trade press, government records, and federal court records, all of which are independently verifiable and policy-compliant.
Merge as second choice: If consensus rejects standalone notability, I prefer merge to Keyence under a "United States operations" section (final section name to be coordinated with the parent article's structure), preserving the sourced KCOA-specific material, with redirects from "Keyence America" and "Keyence Corporation of America" both pointing to the merged anchor. This is preferable to a flat redirect that would lose the verifiable content. Happy to perform the merge work if consensus settles there.
Per WP:HEY, I respectfully suggest the discussion may be reassessed against the substantially improved sourcing now in the article. Happy to address any specific source concerns raised by other editors.
Redirect to Keyence as WP:NEWLLM violation. It is clear by the consistent undue attribution of sources such as "Industry trade publications including Quality Magazine, Control Engineering, and Vision Systems Design have covered the company's products and technology over multiple decades". The author's AI generated response and rewrite only cements that further. Industry awards are WP:CORPTRIV. SecretSpectre (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, I have performed absolutely no WP:BEFORE on the subject of the article to check for notability. My reasoning here is that the article's creator is now blocked for UPE and LLM misuse, that multiple of their other articles were deleted at AfD (or draftified by myself for being AI generated/having no indication of notability), and multiple sources in the article are tagged as having failed verification (probably due to the text being AI generated); see the findings of Talk:Faridul Mostafa Khan/GA1 for example.
I find it highly unlikely that this article is the exception to the rule of the creator's behaviour, and even if the subject is notable we're probably better off nuking this mess and leaving somebody else to create it from scratch later if they see fit. Athanelar (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though weakly, because of the proportion of the article that has verification issues and the alleged LLM provenance. As I was looking at the article I found another source failed verification not noticed in the GA review—the sentence sourced to citation 5 claimed the journalist was jailed for "almost eleven months", when the cited source and others all said it was more than eleven months. For the record I do think the subject counts as notable. —Em-as-in-emily (talk)03:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for AI misuse. No prejudice against recreation if someone wants to tackle that. Please ping me if a Hey effort is made. SenshiSun (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes etymological claims that are not directly supported by the cited sources. The references primarily show usage not linguistic origin, and the cited 19th century dictionary sources contain definitions distinct from the interpretations made at the introduction and elsewhere in the article. Even though sources in this article show existence of the term, they do not establish the specific origin suggested. This raises concerns that the article contains claims not directly supported bu cited sources under Wikipedia policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esther Kings (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current etymology linking oga to the yoruba ga which is interpreted to mean tall is a description of physical height, and contradicts the semantic meaning of Oga. Oga is derived from Ọgaranya or Ogalanya which reflects respect, status, and social authority. Physical height has NO bearing on who is to be called Oga or not. Short people too can be Oga. In NLP research, Oga and Ọgaranya will have better semantic coherence and similarities close to 0, and Ọga and ga will have a semantic distance nearing 2. Those two words do not exist taxonomically nor semantically, and proving otherwise is not helping advance knowledge preservation and/or learning.
I must also appreciate the author for supplementing with the Igbo usage of the word Ọgaranya but that in and of itself should be the derivative not an addendum. Ọgaranya in Igbo has ALWAYS and historically mean a person with high social status, employer, or even a person of wealth.
Delete the ga tall derivation and please update the etymology to reflect the more accurate ọgaranya or ogalanya as primary derivation. Otherwise, the article is distorting knowledge, culture; and history.
The referenced sources does not adequately support the claims made here per WP:V and WP:RS and some of the sources cited are not relevant to the the explanation of oga, per WP:NOR. The root word ga meaning tall also does not match with the semantic meaning of Oga as a short person can be called Oga. Oga also is not a physical descriptor. Lastly, Oga as a word in the Nigerian pidgin, lacks the notability to warrant a page, per WP:GNG
The sockpuppet claim doesn’t have any clear evidence and relates to a closed deletion process. Let’s focus on the sourcing, claims and notability issues raised in this article.
The article on origin of Oga makes etymology claims not supported by the cited sources (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). It also cited many sources that do not align with the meaning of oga in Nigerian pidgin English, as well as sources not related at all to the whole article, such as Herskovits (1930) - The African background of American culture. Also, the topic itself does not meet notability requirement either (WP: N). There’s no significant Independent coverage, including academic sources specifically on ‘the origin of Oga’. So considering these issues, the article should be deleted. Esther Kings (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion. The article cited sources that have meanings quite different from the interpretation of oga at the introduction as a widely used word in Nigerian pidgin English and some other parts of the article. The sources do not align. The 1843, source interprets the word as a brave person or distinguished performer while the 1853 source describes it as one who is exalted or hero and other later sources refer to it as a chief or master. Furthermore, the etymology is not supported by the cited sources (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). The article also cited sources that are not related like Melville J. Herskovits, The African Background of American culture (1930) p.88, which does not mention or discuss 'oga' at all. It also has no connection to the paragraph in which it is cited. So in all, the sources do not support the etymology claims while many of it do not align with what the term denotes in Nigerian pidgin English as seen in the first sentence of the article. This shows inconsistency. Also the topic does not seem to meet notability requirement (WP:N), as there is no strong , independent academic coverage specifically on the origin of the word, so considering these issues, it should be deleted. Esther Kings (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with My Oga at the top As noted by @Kepler-1229b it seems several accounts are related to these incidents Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dangermanmeetz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichafu (headdress) A pattern here seems to be the heavy use of LLMs to create Igbo related articles, or edits of non Igbo articles to include an Igbo relation or origin. I've come across numerous temporary accounts exhibiting the same behaviour on pages such as Oyinbo and Ogiri where words with a documented yoruba origin are often changed to an Igbo origin despite the sources saying otherwise. Articles relating to Igbos obviously aren't a problem, but the editor Esther Kings (talk) who put this article up for deletion has by their own word participated in the use of LLMs in generating Igbo articles, and they have also been flagged as using LLMs to generate sources [[1]], I highlight this because on the same day that Esther created the deletion discussion for this Origin of Oga article, a fresh account Star risen (talk) previously added material [2] to the article with a slew of hallucinated sources to give the article an Igbo attribution, It's likely that those sources were generated by LLMs because they had absolutely nothing to do with the topic or the claims made by Star risen.
On Esther King's appeal that this topic is not notable, leaving aside its inclusion in the Oxford dictionary and early Yoruba dictionaries, this is a quote from the Internation Journal of Migration and Global Studies, titled 'The Intangible Migrant' (2021)
The Yoruba of Nigeria have also contributed intangible immigrant words to Nigerian sociolect. For example, ‘Oga’, a Yoruba word spelt as ọ̀gá, meaning chief, boss, master, etc., has become domesticated as a Nigerian sociolect for a ‘master’, or at least someone who is generous, across linguistic groups.[3] - page 53
The closed SPI confirmed no connection to the repeated sockpuppet accusations. The main issues are lack of notability and the non-aligned and unrelated sources for the etymology claims in this article. The 19th century sources define oga as brave or distinguished person or hero respectively rather than boss in the Nigerian Pidgin usage. Other sources like Herskovits are neither related to the claims they were used for (ga as root of oga) nor the whole article. The article lacks notability as there’s no standalone coverage on the etymology of oga. The additional 2021 vol 1 journal reference is a brief mention rather than a standalone coverage and noted the word’s origin being contested. An article made up of non-aligned and unrelated sources (WP: SYNTH), no standalone coverage (WP: N) and contested origins (WP: OR) should be deleted not kept or merged. Esther Kings (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you keep repeating "delete" to the replies, you put the article up for deletion to begin with, and the reason you want it deleted keeps changing in every reply. Your interpretations of "WP:" don't warrant a deletion. I can't get my hands on the Herskovits source, but the rest unanimously agree that it's a Yoruba word. In the one example I brought up here that mentions a contestation of origin as an aside, no claim of an alternative origin was notable enough to be mentioned. Sohvyan (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The closed SPI confirmed no connection to the repeated sockpuppet accusations.
Agreed. The etymology claims literally quotes Herskovits verbatim which isn’t verifiable, goes ahead to say Crowther and Bowen’s dictionaries support claims of oga denoting position of authority or rank whereas the references contain distinct interpretations not supporting claimed modern translations. I couldn’t find any significant standalone coverage on the etymology of oga to support or establish these claims. Esther Kings (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG as a standalone topic. The article has carried banners for suspected LLM-generated text, promotional wording, and insufficient citations, and the underlying sourcing does not support a separate article. The two news refs are a routine Times of India notice about IMU CET results and a Hindu report on litigation involving the parent Indian Maritime University, neither of which is significant coverage of this campus specifically. The remaining references are the university's own website and a Directorate General of Shipping page, both primary. Historical material about T.S. Dufferin and T.S. Rajendra is largely uncited or single-sourced and in any case concerns predecessor training ships rather than this campus. Per WP:NOPAGE, whatever verifiable content remains belongs in Indian Maritime University rather than as a standalone article Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:AISIGNS and contains at least one factual error: Antaki (1958), doi:10.1021/ja01545a041, does not cover 2-substituted 4H-pyrido[1,2-a]-pyrimidines, such as this compound. Given the article was only approved at AfC yesterday, I would not be opposed to draftification pending cleanup. Likewise for a redirect to 4H-Pyrido(1,2-a)pyrimidin-4-one (the parent compound of the class), which also appears to be substantially LLM-written but may be easier to salvage. Preimage (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim that Antaki (1958) covers 2-substituted derivatives. Reference [2] is cited specifically for the 1958 extension to 3-substituted derivatives and for UV spectroscopic characterisation of the ring system. The structural assignment of the 2-methyl compound is attributed to Antaki and Petrow (1951), Reference [1], which is the correct citation. The stated factual error does not appear in the article as written. — CharlesHAntaki (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is your claim that the 1958 paper covers 3-substituted derivatives of 2-methyl-4H-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrimidin-4-one? Because it doesn't. Preimage (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the article misuses its only good source, then we can't have it anyway. But (1) the article doesn't make a good case for this chemical being notable (see Wikipedia:Notability_(chemicals) for a not-yet-accepted but generally sensible definition of notability for chemicals). Is this specific chemical reviewed reasonably thoroughly in secondary or tertiary literature (more than a brief mention in a mention-everything source)? Or is this specific chemical a big feature of multiple primary sources, not just a couple of ancient patents? (2) the article currently begins with a big misunderstanding: "The correct structure of 2-methyl-4H-pyrido[1,2-a]pyrimidin-4-one was established by Antaki and Petrow in 1951". No, that's not how it works. The systematic name describes exactly that structure; the structure corresponding to a systematic name isn't something that is established by experiment, it's a logical consequence of the name, which is an unambiguous description of structure, a verbal version of drawing the molecule. What the article means to say is that several people prior to 1951 made something else but misidentified what they made, and claimed to have made the subject of the current article although they had not. Elemimele (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NBOOK, has some awards but they're paid for. For example Literary Titan is for self-published authors, Readers' Favorite is just a pay to play website, and OnlineBookClub.org is a website where you pay for author promotion.
(c) Muwadu, an independent literary African platform "Muwadu".
(d) Fatuma’s Voice, an independent literary African platform "Fatuma's Voice".
2. The book was awarded the Independent Press award, 2026 Distinguished Favorite "IPA". and Literary Titan Gold Book award I believe WP:NBOOK does not exclude works that were awarded to self published work, where the standard is independent coverage.
3. “The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution” to a country’s cultural literature resulting in creation of an award that was established by a national literary institution. "FV". "Nashua". "AOA, The DO".
Regarding the article being written by AI/LLM, Grammarly was used. The article can be re-written to meet Wikipedia requirements. I will revise it accordingly.
MSN is a reprint of the article from the Daily Monitor. For the Daily Monitor I can't find an editorial policy or information about the site other than some advertising info. The author Philip Matogo advertising himself as a digital strategist. See the entry for Fatumas Voice below.
The DO accepts short articles for online publication, author is not on the normal staff and is instead a freelancer according the Muckrack.
Muwadu does not have an editorial process or board that reviews it's content. It's a literary platform but not an organized news sources or journal.
Fatumas Voice is authored by the same person who wrote the article for the Daily Monitor (Philip Matogo) and advertises himself with "I develop and manage clients' digital strategy to improve their web presence and achieve their digital marketing goals as well as forge bonds of cooperation with existing and potential clients.". The article from Ink Link is authored by Ivan Edwards so that wouldn't count as an independent source.
Delete per the source analysis by Dr vulpes and the lack of WP:SIGCOV in the usual reliable sources from my own searching. The LLM-ness of the article honestly isn't even relevant, I don't think it can survive with this sourcing. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK #1 because the Daily Monitor is essentially the only potential viable source and even that is suspect per the above analysis by Dr vulpes, which indicates a lack of coverage in independent sources meeting the WP:GNG. Rather obvious AI-powered promo on Wikipedia. The same issues apply to the article Uganda Poetry Society, which the same user "created". Οἶδα (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article is almost certainly LLM-generated and includes several hallmarks of LLM composition, including numerous places where the article states conclusions not in the cited sources. As one example, I reviewed the sources ([4], [5]) for the graf reading Football holds a singular position in Lyari's social and cultural life. In a district defined by economic marginalisation, and a historically tense relationship with state authorities, the game has long served as a vehicle for collective pride and self-expression. Football has been widely identified by community organisations, journalists, and youth workers as a constructive force in a district that has experienced high rates of poverty and exposure to criminal networks. Local coaches and youth organisers have described the game as a means by which young men are drawn away from negative influences and channelled into communal and competitive activity. This passage makes sweeping claims not supported by the sources. The sources do not indicate a singular position for football in Lyari, just that it is "a big hit". Each source quotes one coach who makes the claims attributed to "local coaches". The second source quotes a single youth social worker, not the multiples of those individuals indicated by the prose. Neither source indicates journalists describing football as a constructive force. Neither source says anything about pride or self-expression. I reviewed other paragraphs and found similar problems with source-text integrity. While it's not at the level of a G15 speedy deletion, the article cannot be salvaged without a volunteer-time-intensive manual review of every source and claim, and thus should be deleted per WP:TNT and WP:NOLLM, with no prejudice against a human-written article on this topic in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lyari#Sports and/or Football in Pakistan. The article is not unsourced; it cites Reuters, Dawn, Al Jazeera, Arab News and others, and the topic clearly has some real-world coverage. But I agree the current prose overreaches in places and should not be kept as-is. Merge the clearly verified material, with no prejudice against a clean standalone article later.Umais🗣06:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to be the one who goes through and examines every line to be sure it aligns with the source? It's already shown that the sources don't back up multiple claims in this article. LLM-generated text produces significantly higher verification burdens for our volunteers, which is why generated articles like this using LLMs is now banned. It would be much better to start over with fresh text using the available sources than to merge any of this stuff. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Hi. Thank you for bringing up this issue. While spotchecking during the DYK review, I checked every source and majorly found them backing claims within the article using some specific keywords only. You may also see in page history that I tried copyediting a little bit. But really sorry, I could not figure out every problematic text at that time, which is my mistake. You may be right that there should be phrasing issues and the article needs a complete rewrite, but I believe it does not mean that the article is unsourced. Currently, it complies WP:INLINE and a rewrite using these very references within the same article structure should work. Not commenting on the AfD part, but I may comment on the DYK part that a reminder ping should have been given to the reviewer (me) before going to close/reject. This previously happened at the DYK review of the article Populus Denver. Any way, thank you again. M.Billoo13:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was unsourced, and that is not the ground for why it should be deleted. It is adequately sourced, but the sources do not support the text during any of my spotchecks, and this is a significant problem with LLM-generated prose, which this is. The grounds for deletion are WP:NOLLM and WP:TNT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in article are industry PR pieces and LinkedIn, and I'm not finding anything approaching independent secondary sources in my searching. tony02:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept. Squeeze is a 17 year old company that has employed over 7,000 people in Utah, Idaho and across the country. There are references from Inc5000, BBB.org, Clutch.co, Glassdoor, Indeed, and many other sites to validate the business. Cpoppenger (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC) — Cpoppenger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I disagree. Squeeze Media is one of the biggest employers in Orem, Utah (480 people) and has be publicly recognized as a top place to work in Utah Valley. We will continue to work through Wikipedia authorship guidelines until all parties are satisfied. Obornp (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For fun I ran the current version through multiple AI systems and asked for them to determine if this was AI-generated and all 3 came back as "inconclusive". The current version of the article states facts and reads clean. An aritle 100% created by AI uses overly smooth but vague language, repeated sentence structures, makes broad claims without citations, uses promotional wording that sounds like marketing copy, and lacks concrete, independently verifiable details. Every statement made in this article has references, it doesn't read like marketing copy, and is written in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Just my opinion. I vote to let the article stand on its own merits in its current form. Solveforce (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP. If the article creators believe it can be improved to show notability, then they're welcome to rewrite the article and resubmit an improved article to AFC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious as to your definition of 'notability'. The article has citations and references from some of the largest and most important small business magazines in the industry. Employment count is verified by Glassdoor, LinkedIn, and other web sites that validate private company information. The company is one of the largest employers in Orem, Utah. With respect, is there a revenue threshold, headcount threshold, or industry award that you'd like to see in order for this article to be 'notable'? Solveforce (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC) — Solveforce (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Obornp (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete - the article is mostly cited to company profile pages, which don't count towards WP:CORPDEPTH. The remainder are 'PR Newswire' or similar which all fail WP:ORGIND requirements. I did my own search for coverage in news media but couldn't find anything other than PR and profile pages. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)08:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another AI-generated "X in Y" article. This could conceivably be a notable subject, but the article is as generic as you could possibly imagine: Extremely general content on how to get a leg up in admissions, licensure requirements, the importance of extracurricular activities, and all kinds of other stuff that would be equally true of education in any other sector, is better covered in other articles, and (most significantly) is largely unsourced. Article should be deleted per WP:NEWLLM and WP:TNT at least. Everything in the article that is specific to engineering education is better covered in other articles, and everything else is so general and common-sense that it is totally pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This reads like a LLM generated article. The content is confusing as to whether it talks about engineering curriculum, organization or subject in its own. There is no clarity. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD The templates only get added when students assign themselves articles, so they don't get added to new creations like this one. If you think it would be helpful though, I can talk to Sage about figuring out how this might be done. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the warn tool in Twinkle. Two people (including me) have warned them about this, and they've complied, but they didn't do anything about the articles that they had already created. GrinningIodize (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went through some of these articles and stripped all the AI text, leaving just a stub with the references. So those articles can be reassessed in light of WP:GNG without concern for WP:NOLLM. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)22:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: The original rationale for deletion no longer exists, as I have stripped all the AI text from all the nominated articles and rewritten them from scratch as stubs. All of them appear to clearly meet notability requirements based on their sourcing. Dakshin Char Kalibari Masjid is the most marginal case, but even that seems to skate past the line IMO. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)20:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This situation seems pretty close to WP:CSK #3 - no deletion rationale has been offered other than WP:NEWLLM, which no longer applies due to the total rewriting of the articles. Any closer would need to consider that. I would call for an snowball close to save closer time, except I'd like to leave room for Jumpytoo and Ismeiri to offer any other deletion reasons they might have. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)14:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With AI alignment as an alternative to deletion. This concept regardless of it it was written with an LLM is an important facet of AI alignment which deals with the morals and ethics are AI models. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've reformatted the nomination per WP:BUNDLE to allow for script handling. Please note there are 8 pages nominated here. If you are only addressing some of them, please make that clear in your !vote. With the LLM authorship issue presumably addressed, at least for some of the nominated pages, arguments can now be based on subject merit. Kudos to SuperPianoMan9167 for restoring the AfD notice tags. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎12:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation is a primary source, the second citation 404's, the third sitation seems self-published, the fourth source is primary, self-published and not independent, the fifth source seems non-independent, and the sixth source 404's. Seems to fail WP:GNG.
When they first created the article, there was also a large amount of citation errors, such as "unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored" and "Check |url= value". The external links they provided were in Markdown format. (Markdown uses [https://example.com](Example text) while MediaWiki uses [https://example.com Example text]. Meets WP:AISIGNS#Broken wikitext. There were also duplicated references.
And it contains weasel words, specifically in this text: Benchmarks demonstrate that PEF maintains competitive query performance.
PEF is an data structure used in IR systems and Search Engines. It comes from the research in the early 2010s. It needs to be improved (that's what wikipedia editors are for) but I don't think it needs to be deleted completely.
There was no WP:LLM when I created these articles therefore the usage of LLM was not intended to break any policy.
Marking articles nominated for deletion as reviewed is standard process per WP:NPPDEL. It does not mean the article is 'off the hook', and this deletion discussion will proceed as normal. SnowyRiver28(talk)12:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a WP:LLMT from the page on da.wiki including nonsense code in many of the references such as "Retrieved 13 March 2025" and several broken links. This suggests that the references have been copied and added to en wiki without the minimum amount of checking required. JMWt (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing and formatting may need cleanup, but that is an article quality issue, not a deletion rationale. As presented, the subject has played at high level club handball, earned Denmark national team caps, and has notable domestic achievements including league top scorer and all star team recognition, which is enough for a standalone article under WP:GNG. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It's possible that a translator could forget to update the access date if they checked the sources, but in this case source 3, 4, and 6 don't load which means not even a skimming of the sources was done. Draftify so a check of the sources can be done. JumpytooTalk21:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough SIGCOV is there to meet WP:NSTATION and GNG. LLM issues can be fixed through editing, cuz AFD ain't cleanup after all. Here are the sources - [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. There's also some coverage about a parking lot controversy. Notable topic for sure. But if the consensus indicates that it's beyond redemption, then WP:TNT could be applied. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:15, 18 April 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)
