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.
Delete. Negligible as a scholar, as far as I can see. It's not easy to estimate her h from the data at Google Scholar, but it seems likely to be of the order of 15 or less, not enough for a senior professor. Athel cb (talk) 17:29, 24 June 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]
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.
Completely redundant WP:CFORK of Educational technology and largely AI-written as well. About the only passable part of the article is the "Education and technology in developing countries" section, portions of which could be merged to the above article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - only about a quarter of the article has been added since the release of ChatGPT, so it it seems improbable that most of it is AI generated. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 23 June 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]
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]
Speedy delete – This should be G15-able. There are at least two 404 links in the reflist, and other refs that don't mention the subject at all. In solidarity, nilnz01:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For transparency, I started the discussion linked above, "What is reasonable", and also nominated another of this user's articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolph Charles "R.C." Rieder. My !vote is here is not based on those discussions, but is a result of not being able to find significant coverage in RS of Richard Maddy. I have found his obituary at Legacy.com, but think it is family-written and therefore does not contribute to notability. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pervasive citing of sources for information they do not contain, WP:SYNTH of a bunch of loosely-related sources about disinformation. As a glaring example, neither of the first two sources contain the term "narrative attack", and the definition in the lead is cited to those two sources. ~ A412talk!18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOLLM (article is less than a week old) and obvious AI tells. And yes, the sources I checked either don't use the term or use it in passing. More bullets than a National Guard armory; obvious slop. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably AI slop. Neither the text nor the references make any sense. References [1] and [4] are entire journals, for instance. The only reference that is specifically about square wave packets is [3], which is just a self-published webpage. For basic topics such as this we'd like a textbook reference.
But even if it weren't AI slop I don't think we should have an article about square wave packets, the topic is way too narrow. Tercer (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AI slop almost for certain, and lazy slop at that. Even if it weren't AI generated, the referencing is unacceptable as nom points out; Ref. 3 and 6 have passing mentions of square wave packets, but others don't. The title case is also a dead giveaway. Fails WP:NOLLM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be an AI-generated output without human review, which is in violation of WP:LLM guidelines. Additionally, several citations failed verification. I also have notability concerns. Several sources are less than reliable (The Association News and The Economic Times, as well as possibly NDTV Gadgets). I only see one reliable source which contains WP:SIGCOV, which is the Indian Express. The Financial Express source only mentions the organization once in passing, so it fails WP:SIGCOV. The Business Line source returns a 404 error and I cannot find an archive for it. Gommeh(talk!sign!)19:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose draftifying because this article is entirely unsourced and is likely at least partially AI-generated or AI-assisted. It was previously draftified once for these same issues back in May, but the original author appears to have pasted the exact same content back into mainspace without improvement. Because it has already been moved to draft once, I believe a firm consensus is needed to return it to draftspace. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we expect a different outcome from repeating the same draftification action? It didn't solve the problem the first time. Contrary to nom, I would strongly prefer Delete. It's almost surely LLM (look at the use of Markup instead of wikilinks), it's not adequately sourced, and it is POV-pushing: While later nationalistic historiography attempted to frame the event differently is not the kind of thing you can say without very good sourcing. M kuhner (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that I believe a draftification supported by XFD consensus can be enforced, including via round-robin page moves if needed, in the event that the author tries to circumvent it without improvement. A unilateral move-to-draft cannot be enforced in this manner, and is only supposed to be done once. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already carries a reliability warning. Multiple citations lack proper publication details and are difficult to verify.
Many of the article's claims cannot be independently verified through reliable sources.
Heavy reliance on quotes from relatively obscure figures like CARI or Evan Collins without documented or citable publications.
The writing style, vague attributions, and unverifiable specifics suggest this may be AI-generated content. (Quoted from the article: "This aesthetic reflects nostalgia and intrigue for the past, woven together with various cultural influences. By incorporating gothic elements, these cultural references highlight the darker aspects of the design"). Miiversal (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources given are likely adequate for notability, but the article is almost certainly mostly (if not all) LLM, and in such cases it's better to WP:TNT and not risk subtle text/source mismatches. My reasons for suspecting LLM, besides the style pointed out by nom: Very close paraphrases with bizarre vocabulary substitutions: reflects the reminiscence of the gloomy lavishness of the late 1980s in the article sources to harkens back to the dark opulence of the late 80s. Citations in the middle of a paragraph leaving the rest hanging. Exact copy of a direct quote in a source, including embedded "he said" which is not appropriate in the article context. And almost every use of source #1 attributes material to it which is not actually there, for example the stuff about Burton. M kuhner (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Talent agency owner with a couple roles in non-notable films. Low-quality web sources such as The Mirror, Daily Caller, Distractify (all listed as unreliable at WP:RSP). 3 major editors have been blocked, one of which for undisclosed paid editing.
Hi there everyone! PJ Schulte here. Yes, it's me and not someone pretending to be me.
Not too familiar with Wikipedia or requirements - just joined. Very interested in learning about the publications. I did see my Forbes article was removed from the sources. That was a surprise!
My talent agency Paragon West does not even seem to be mentioned in the text, no idea why. I manage boxer Ryan Garcia, and partner very closely with the Michael Jackson Estate, Lionsgate, etc. It's interesting the editor helping would not mention that. In fact, a lot of the information is incorrect and poorly written.
In terms of my acting work and producing work, there are also many errors. Not really sure what this editor (or editors it seems) did to help other than trash talk (sorry about that!)
Is there anything I can do to resolve my page issues before it's gone, or is it a lost cause? I think the editor I asked caused 100x more harm than good. If it goes, not the end of the world; however, would be great if it is salvagable! Thank you all! ~2026-36263-78 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this article has multiple issues and I don't think it can be salvaged. The sources don't support the specific claims made, and some don't work at all. It even states that Zimbabwe is a country in Southeast Asia. The article makes very specific claims on stats and numbers, but the sources say nothing at all about those statements. It was obviously a very rushed article, on the talk page I hear it's some kind of school project. This is a multi-policy violation and I think it's best it's sent to draft. Omniking2100 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely AI-generated. @Omniking2100, you can mark this article for speedy deletion if you can pinpoint which citations "don't work at all" or "don't support the specific claims made" per G15. Nonsensical citations are a sign of the whole page relying on AI. toby(t)(rw)17:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could barely get through this article. It is so long and convoluted and has no indication of notability. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉20:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where to begin. This article is a complete disaster, meandering from topic to topic, stating blatant falsehoods (Southeast Asia being the most atrocious). Largely the project of a single editor beginning in February of this year. If there is a better example of why WP:NOLLM is needed, I haven't seen it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many other articles on education financing that are suspected to be AI generated and started around the same time. Should they be bundled into this nomination? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh Sorry, I am resident of this Police Commissionerate area, Just as like Greater Mumbai Police , Nagpur Police , etc. many police commissionerate's have their data, as Wikipedia is the source for many people using it for their articles News Channels, etc. So just wanted to have all this information available for Mira Bhayandar, Vasai Virar Police Commissionerate also. Just for that, also I have all the Information available, wheather be it map of justification and other officers details. CyberPratik (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite author's statement, based on LLM use. (Frankly WP:G15 speedy delete seems reasonable, but I presume the nominator had their reasons for coming to AfD.) One reference is cited to "Author, Name". Three others, looking totally dissimilar and in two different languages, all go to the same site. If it goes to draft it will just come back again. M kuhner (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local politician, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. There's a lot of sources here but they mostly consist of routine coverage of his campaigns and other political activities in local news, which does not count towards notability under WP:NPOL, along with pieces where Duran is merely quoted or interviewed. The best sources that could argue for notability are local news pieces about his non-political activities ([2], [3], [4], [5]), but they are interview-based and not independent coverage. I plan to AFD the related articles Devil Dog USA and Vet Talk after this AFD is closed and would appreciate additional input on what to do with these articles collectively.
This article is also LLM-assisted/LLM-generated with vague analysis such as Duran has appeared as a commentator in local and national media on veterans’ issues and New York City politics, although scrubbing the LLM usage will not fix the notability issue. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As further evidence for why the coverage is non-independent, note that this 2023 piece says that Duran was emailing news organizations asking for publicity, and this 2014 piece says Thanks to the resourcefulness and tenacity of the Devil Dog USA, Inc. team, word of mouth is spreading quickly and the group is gaining traction in the veteran’s community and visibility in the public eye including local online news outlet DNAinfo New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Originally, this article was submitted based on the subject's nonprofit work and the independent coverage that work has received over the years.
I believe the original description of the subject as a "political activist" was later changed by another editor to "politician." After reviewing it, I noted that the subject serves as both the chairman of his political party and as a district leader. Based on Wikipedia's own wording regarding individuals involved in policy-making through political parties or elected positions, I did not see a reason to challenge or change that description.
When it comes to notability, I looked at several factors before submitting the article:
1. The references span from 2014([6]) through 2026([7]), showing coverage over more than a decade rather than a brief period of attention.
2. The coverage is not limited to one local outlet. The sources include local([8]), regional([9]), national([10]), and even some international([11] check at 1h 5min mark) coverage.
3. The articles cover different aspects of the subject's public life, including nonprofit work([12]), political activity([13]), media involvement([14]), and community advocacy([15]).
Regarding the concern about LLM-generated content, the section that was referenced was originally part of the broader Media section and was later separated into a Commentary subsection. There really was not much additional information to expand upon, but references were added to provide context and distinction.
That said, I do think the article, taken as a whole, demonstrates encyclopedic value. The subject has received coverage from multiple independent sources over an extended period of time, and that coverage spans different areas of public activity rather than focusing on a single incident or role.
Please don't use LLMs to communicate on Wikipedia. "There really was not much additional information to expand upon, but references were added to provide context and distinction" does not explain the LLM-generated content or make it acceptable (LLM-generated content is everywhere in the article, not limited to one particular section). Again, quotes and interviews are not independent coverage and generally do not count towards notability regardless of whether they are local or international. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia does not have a set standard for notability, requirements, article length, or a specific time frame that automatically makes someone notable.
The rules and guidelines provide suggestions and common trends, but each article is evaluated on its own merits. Even the wording for the initiation for the Article for Deletion in this case, used terms such as "could," and "generally,” which leaves room for editorial judgment.
Generally, many editors seem to view three to five in-depth articles from independent sources as a reasonable baseline for establishing notability. This article contains more than that.
With regard to interviews, they can be used as either primary or secondary sources depending on the context in which they are being cited. Again, Wikipedia provides general guidance rather than an absolute rule.
For example, if a politician discusses their party platform, political positions, personal background, or other public matters in an interview published by an independent journalist through a reputable news outlet, that can certainly be used as a primary source for those statements. At the same time, the fact that multiple independent media outlets are interviewing the same individual over a period of years is, in my opinion, another indicator of public interest and notability.
Even if those interviews are excluded entirely from the discussion, the article still contains multiple independent and in-depth sources covering the subject over a period of more than a decade on different public activities.
Given the multiple independent articles, combined with the interviews and coverage that span different years, regions, and areas of public activity, it is my opinion that WP:GNG is more than satisfied.DRLily01 (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am submitting AFD/Gonzalo Duran for rescue list.
I believe this article contains more than enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG.
Based on the assessment submitted by the editor who initiated the Article of Deletion/Gonzalo Duran, the only issue that would warrant deletion would be if notability was established or not.
Given that the subject has received multiple in-depth articles from independent sources spanning more than a decade, I believe the article satisfies the general indicators for notability.
Specifically:
1. The references span from 2014([16]) through 2026([17]), showing coverage over more than a decade rather than a brief period of attention.
2. The coverage is not limited to one local outlet. The sources include local([18]), regional([19]), national([20]), and even some international([21] check at 1h 5min mark) coverage.
3. The articles cover different aspects of the subject's public life, including nonprofit work([22]), political activity([23]), media involvement([24]), and community advocacy([25]).
4. The editor who initiated Article for Deletion used these examples as possible notability, ([26], [27], [28], [29]).
The subject is not being covered for a single event, controversy, or campaign. The coverage spans multiple areas of public activity and demonstrates sustained attention over a significant period of time.
This is more LLM-generated commentary, and you still haven't addressed your use of LLMs in writing article content (see WP:LLM) or your connection to Duran. LLM-generated comments are not given any weight in discussions and may be collapsed to hide them. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost certainly LLM-generated, and fails WP:NOLLM.
Most of the references are either WP:NEWSORGINDIA or just links to the main pages like "Urban Local Bodies – Delimitation of Wards" (sec.gujarat.gov.in) and "Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949" (lpd.gujarat.gov.in). Both of those sources time out for me (could be geographic restrictions), and they were last saved by archive.org in 2022. The source "Cabinet approves creation of nine new municipal corporations in Gujarat" (cmogujarat.gov.in/en/latest-news/cabinet-approved-9-new-mnc-gujarat) also times out for me, and has never been saved by archive.org.
The statement From 1 January 1956 to 2024, it was governed under Gujarat Nagar Palika Act, 1963 is sourced to nri.gujarat.gov.in/Index, which does not mention the "Gujarat Nagar Palika act" or the year 1963.
When it was created in revision 1323586103, there were some more visible LLM-tells like WP:AIBOLD and redlinked categories. The user who created the article has twice made edits with the PUA Unicode byte sequence that is described in WP:AISIGNS § turn0search0. First in Diff/1354089670, along with a redlinked category and pasting a new generated copy of the article above the existing copy, and then by reinstating the same generated text it in Diff/1359141211 today. ‑‑gurkubondinn11:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: Found a number of sources in cursory search [1], It passes GNG and I am also able to access the sources nominator said were "timedout" for him. Although I admit that atleast some parts of article do contain LLM generated content that can be fixed by rewriting article. However, I dont think its warranted for a deletion.AristocrSirr22 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AristocrSirr22: I think that you may have misunderstood why I sent this to AfD. I'm not making a comment on weather or not the subject of the article is notable, I am only saying that the article itself fails NOLLM. It would need to be completely rewritten, and all the generated text would need to be removed, amounting to a TNT. There seem to be good sources available on the subject, so it is most likely notable, but generated articles have been rejected by the community (leaving that to Grokipedia and others). If you (or someone else) were to rewrite the article and remove all of the generated text, I would immediately withdraw this AfD without hesitation.Do all of the sources that I mentioned timing out work for you? As I said in the non, this could just be georestrictions. We should WP:ALWAYSARCHIVE any sources used, this is a great reason for why. ‑‑gurkubondinn11:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AristocrSirr22: there haven't been any changes yet. I doubt that it will be rewritten. Like I said, I have no qualms against an article on this place existing, I just think that the current article is unfixable LLM-generated text. ‑‑gurkubondinn10:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AristocrSirr22: yep, I saw that. I was just pointing out that no changes had been made since you had said your !vote would depend on what happened in a specific timeframe. Feel free to leave it though, just meant it as a reminder for you. Agreed that we'd need some more participation to establish consensus for any outcome though. ‑‑gurkubondinn10:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to a future human-written version. Trying to fix LLM text is difficult and there's no indication anyone has stepped up to do it. M kuhner (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity "psychic", self-help type figure. There's some coverage of her, but it's exclusively the credulous puff piece type of source ("I spoke to my dead father through a psychic medium – and I couldn’t believe what I was told", for example), which are of dubious reliability. I tried to look for more even-handed coverage and even negative/skeptical coverage, which you'd generally expect to find some of for notable "psychics", but found nothing really.
On top of that, there are definitely some WP:AISIGNS present here, combined with the perfect formal English and markup in a single edit from a brand new account, that wrote this comment when this was originally at RFD, demonstrating a lack of English proficiency. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources that made me think twice were those from The Independent, but I realised that they were just as credulous as the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NOLLM, being created unreasonably fast. Nobody writes with such a different level of proficiency, there is only one reasonable explanation for that. The sources also don't show SIGCOV, they are all credulous fluff. ‑‑gurkubondinn20:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AI-generated article about a non-notable psychic. There are lifestyle fluff pieces in outlets that are generally reliable but upon inspection these do not contribute to notability, as others have noted. The suggestion to send this to draft space when the current content is unusable per the LLM policy and there are no good sources is incoherent. —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a notable individual. The Independent has covered Leussink at least three times across different years, with articles written by different journalists about her work, and her life in details. In addition, at least two other reliable publications have written about her, which should be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. There are also numerous supporting references, which are considered reliable for Wikipedia.I have revised the text and removed the LLM wording, so that should no longer be a reason to delete the article. Anyone may examine the current version, including with AI-detection toolsXcccccccc123 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of the text remaining in the article seems to be the LLM-generated text, and the Times source that you added is paywalled but the the title it seems to to be just as credulous as the rest of them. Why did you remove the {{circa}} template though? Personally I wouldn't waste any more time trying to fix this article. If you believe that this person is notable, then it's better to TNT and start over from scratch than trying to rescue an LLM text. ‑‑gurkubondinn09:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting the format. I do not see any remaining LLM wording. I assume it is good now, or at least at a point where any remaining issues can be handled with a cleanup tag, and I believe the discussion should focus on the notability of the individual. Xcccccccc123 (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily see that: Diff/1358982039/1359132033. The article was initially generated by an LLM, and the user who created it was the only contributor to the text before your edits. So any unchanged text is generated. If you believe that this person meets notability guidelines, then your best bet is to write a new article from scratch. We know from experience (and the study done by WikiEd) that trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is more work than starting from scratch. We don't allow LLM-generated text in the encyclopaedia, so generated articles are deleted, regardless of the notability of their subjects. ‑‑gurkubondinn09:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are published by reliable sources, but they are not independent from the subject. Both of the pieces published by The Independent are interviews which are not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject, because the information comes directly from the subject (that's why the author parameters n {{cite interview}} should be set to the interviewee). That's different from a journalistic article where the journalist writes based on their own research. I can't read the article in The Times because it's paywalled (I might have access through WP:LIBRARY or my local library but I didn't check), and the piece in Vogue is is also an interview (but it is also paywalled so I can't be sure), but it is someone who went to see this supposed psychic that is being interviewed, so that might be the best of these four sources.But none of that changes that the article currently fails WP:NOLLM, all of the prose in it was generated. You did a good job of removing the worst of it, but that just means that there is a smaller amount of generated text on the page (but the ratio is still the same). If you think that this person is notable, and you want there to be a BLP on them in the encylcopaedia, then your best bet is to just write a new article from scratch. Trying to "fix" or "rescue" an LLM-generated article is always going to be more more difficult and more work than to simply start from scratch. ‑‑gurkubondinn09:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LLM-generated text is a trap. The article looks good, you think you can use some of it...but I've tried this repeatedly, and it really is a nightmare, worse than writing a new article. And there is a huge risk that the AISIGNS are removed but the false sourcing is not, rendering it extremely hard to spot in the future. (This is in my opinion the worst possible outcome. Never fix LLM wording until LLM hallucinations have all been removed. It's like putting carpet over a big hole in the floor.) M kuhner (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we believe there is this much reliable source attention (and that is a big if), the text as is does not show any relevance of the topic in any relevant context which does indeed look like LLM generated halucinations Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 21 June 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)
