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.
This article was written by an editor shown to have used LLMs (see WP:AINB § User:DddsDD) and the vast majority of the text is still theirs. It has very extensive sourcing issues including links that go nowhere, incompletely specified sources, inappropriate sources, and a "source" where the citation number is just hardcoded as text and not a link. I believe the subject may be notable, though the non-English sourcing is hard for me to assess. But based on previous experience with articles like this, it is safest to delete with no prejudice to a human recreation, especially as this is a BLP. Alternatively, if someone wants to take responsibility for the article, stubifying or draftifying would be options. M kuhner (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The AI slop in the current article could possibly be cleaned up because Anna Peresild has some early evidence of notability. She is one half of the duet in the song "Siluet" which made the charts in several countries, though whether those particular streaming-related charts are valid could be investigated more closely. She was nominated for something called an APKIT award. which may or may not be a prestigious honor in her country (Russian news sources on this look gossipy to me). Either way, my rationale is a more friendly WP:TOOSOON for now, and if her career goes further perhaps she will earn a better article from a sensible human who knows how to write. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article was probably created in response to the recent rise in Polish-Ukrainian tensions. In many ways, it appears to be a mirror image of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, perhaps intended as a counterbalance or a response to it.
The problem is that it effectively combines crimes committed against Ukrainian civilians by various Polish groups that had little or nothing to do with one another. These ranged from communist military forces to nationalist militias, organizations with different goals, operating independently and without coordination. By grouping all of these events together, the article creates the impression of a single, unified genocidal campaign against Ukrainians.
This is very different from the article on the Volhynia massacres, which deals with the so-called "anti-Polish action" carried out by the singular organisation OUN-B and it's armed force UPA in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia and which resulted in the deaths of roughly 100,000 Poles. In my opinion, presenting these unrelated events as a single phenomenon is misleading and amounts to original synthesis. I am not aware of any academic publication that treats the subject in this way.
Moreover, nearly every incident mentioned in the article already has its own dedicated Wikipedia entry, and there is also the article Polish–Ukrainian conflict (1939–1947) covering the broader context. As a result, this article does not seem to add any meaningful value. Also, although it's a minor thing, some of the events described happened after the WW2 ended, so they are outside of the article scope. Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusting whitewashing and false balance whataboutism genocide denial. UPA and Ukrainian civilians committed huge scale planned genocide and few righteous Ukrainian where murdered by Ukrainians (!) and few other by Poles in self-defense, but the UPA planned systematic genocide and want "Ukraine clean as glass of water" without Poles, Jews, Czechs and others. So compressing of those two is just disgusting genocide denial. First I will like to see article Volhynia genocide denial because it's what neonazi and nationalist Ukrainian propaganda is doing. From Nazi Ukrainian nationalist collaboration OUN Uprising of 1939, through commiting Volhynia genocide, denying it, calling it a conflict, till now naming unit after Nazi collaborators who committed genocide it's full blown antipolonism, Nazism and just not a place for this nationalist propaganda and denialism on Wiki ~2026-36363-21 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep.
English Wikipedia currently has no article providing an aggregate account of Ukrainian civilian deaths at the hands of Polish armed formations during and after World War II — despite the topic being treated as a unified pattern in reliable secondary sources, and despite a Wikipedia category (Category:Massacres of Ukrainians committed by Poland in World War II) with 11 entries already anticipating exactly this article. The individual massacre articles cannot, by definition, cover the aggregate death toll, the pattern across multiple formations, the interwar discrimination that provided the structural precondition, the historiographical debate over the reprisal framing, or the legal record. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia serves exactly this aggregate function for the other side of the same conflict; the same justification applies here.
On original synthesis: The nominator states he is "not aware of any academic publication that treats the subject in this way." Multiple independent scholarly works treat Polish anti-Ukrainian operations as a unified pattern: Motyka in Od rzezi wołyńskiej do akcji "Wisła" (2011), p. 448; Wolczuk (Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2002); Rossolinski-Liebe; Hałagida and Iwanyk's named-victim database covering the entire Lublin District (Ukraińskie żertwy Chołmszczyny, Lviv, 2021); and Sawa's dedicated monograph on the Hrubieszów operation (Kolegium Europy Wschodniej, 2024). The aggregate treatment exists across reliable secondary sources in three national scholarly traditions. The article introduces no new thesis — it summarises what those sources already state. Per Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not, summary is not SYNTH, and anyone invoking SYNTH should be able to identify the new thesis being introduced. There is none.
On disparate perpetrators and WP:POVFORK: The article does not claim a unified command — it documents a pattern, exactly as Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia covers multiple UPA units across different regions under a single umbrella. A WP:POVFORK would advocate a position absent from existing coverage; this article fills a demonstrable gap. If Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia is not a fork of Polish–Ukrainian conflict (1939–1947), neither is this one. The existing category name — "Massacres of Ukrainians committed by Poland" — is broader and more direct than the article title, which scopes responsibility specifically to military and paramilitary formations; if the category passes WP:NPOV, the title does so by definition.
The nominator correctly notes some events postdate May 1945; if the title requires adjustment to reflect the full 1943–1947 scope, that is a matter for WP:RM, not deletion.
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia it is an article because Ukrainians planned systematic genocide and cleansing and want "Ukraine clean as glass of water" without Poles, Jews, Czechs and others and did it in huge numbers. It's should be moved to Volhynia genocide, because it's recognized as genocide or it's common name Volhynian slaughter.
Weak keep. The topic seems notable. The question therefore should be concerned with whether this merits a WP:TNT due to low quality or not. I've read the article, and (as a Pole who has seen his fair share of nationalist POV pushing and like on Wikipedia) I feel it is roughly neutral. The article is far from perfect, I just removed numerous references to Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR). It has WP:ORish and weasely parts, for example in one place work of a scholar (Ukranian Ihor Iliushyn) is called "leading" - and this is cited to that scholar's book. Some sources used merit further scrutiny (ex. www.posle.media - what is this?). The unreferenced Political context section is problematic, and oblivious to crucial aspects like the use of this topic by modern Russian propaganda. I can list a number of other problems; however, I do find them surmountable. As I said, the topic is notable, the article has POV issues but they are fixable, OR/uncited parts can be deleted/referenced, and big parts of the article seem cited to reliable sources, although I haven't verified most of them (the quote attributed to volhyniamassacre.eu in the lead is correct, and the source is reliable - it's a portal of IPN; that said, whether this quote is DUE on the lead is another issue, it may be POVed). Overall, I am leaning towards keeping, but I'd also support tagging this article with a POV template. It needs both more referencing, and NPOVing further (for one more example of POV issues, consider this sentence in the lead: "The violence followed — and in some cases preceded — large-scale UPA massacres of Poles, and is frequently characterised in Polish historiography as retaliatory" - the preceded part is a REDFLAG and should be cited; nothing in the body seems to warrant such a summary in the lead, plus this is also illogiclal - how can a violence that preceded something be called retaliatory? On a side note, I do wonder if the article wasn't LLM-generated, perhaps after feeding it some sources... no smoking gun, but the use of several Wikipedia articles as sources is a known error in AI generated articles. These days, sigh. Anyway, keep, tag and rewrite, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by Yaroself seems AI-generated. I will refrain from collapsing it, although someone else might. I will also note for the closer that this editor is the creator of the article. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:POVFORK, comparable to the case of the Litvinism article before its rewriting. The author's argument for keeping this article relies heavily on the expectation that a category existing for the already-documented massacres means they should be grouped in one article. This article seems to be written using an LLM, groups together massacres by different units with different ideological origins into one category, listing them in the "perpetrators" section as a cohesive whole even though those were at conflict with each other. This view does not exist in any academic sources on the matter, cites references from obscure websites, and the article itself has severe POV issues, being founded entirely on Ukrainian historiography: eg. it lists Lemko victims of massacres despite the article being about Massacres of Ukrainians (there is no consensus, even on the page Lemkos, of the Lemko ethnographic group as belonging to the Ukrainian nation), and as already mentioned, the title is "in World War II"; plenty of the incidents listed are as long after WW2 as 1946. The article should be deleted, not to obscure any truth but to be rewritten in a less polemical way, as even the title itself falls short of any historical truth. The article simultaneously states that only Polish historiography frames the massacres as reprisal killings (implying that the motive was, instead, ethnic cleansing – in fact, this is much closer to the consensus classification of the Massacres of Polish civilians, so it is a reversal of historiography), but also talks about them being carried out in reprisal for UPA's actions, which does not match up. Even Reuters says: "Ukrainians also died in reprisal killings", clearly introducing the Volhynian and Eastern Galician massacres as the preceding context, see here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-president-decides-strip-ukraines-zelenskiy-top-honour-over-ww2-dispute-2026-06-19/ It is also worth noting that both this article and a hypothetical Massacres of Ukrainians by Ukrainian nationalists / Massacres of Ukrainians by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army meet notability and have sources to warrant their creation. Von Sprat (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward keep if the framing can be justified, perhaps to better align it with Polish–Ukrainian conflict (1939–1947), though that is not my call to make. For one, I wholeheartedly disagree with the assessment that this is a denial attempt, or that it helps the denial cause. On the contrary, by grouping together mass violence and massacres committed by different actors with different political aims and leanings, it pushes back against the, perhaps the most popular, whitewashing narrative that portrays the civilian killings as simply a war between the Home Army and the UPA. --~2026-37048-52 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and arguments made by Von Sprat. The topic might be notable but the clear LLM usage, paired with dodgy, unlinked references that prevent corroboration (assuming they even exist) makes the entire article unsuitable for mainspace. The author justification seems to rely on WP:RGW. The only viable option I see is to WP:BLOWITUP. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely AI-generated article (was a redirect until 2025, when the current content was dropped in). Heavy on WP:SYNTH, with many sections just citing lists of scientists or statistics without ever referring to a source that talks about science in Taiwan as a single topic. Fails WP:NEWLLM. We have Economy of Taiwan and National Science and Technology Council (Taiwan) if there is anything here that could be merged, but I would prefer a delete so as not to encourage more unreviewed AI use. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to LLM use. Trying to salvage LLM text is hazardous and I don't think it's worthwhile here. No prejudice to creation of a new version written by humans. M kuhner (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NOLLM, oppose merging because that would also fail NOLLM. No comment on notability, but the currently existing articles should cover the topic. ‑‑gurkubondinn22:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT. It is based almost entirely on a single source (Daftary p. 35) resulting in a very limited, dictionary-style entry that lacks the significant coverage required for a standalone article. The event appears to be adequately covered within broader topics such as the Fatimid conquest of the Levant, the history of Ramla, or biographies of Ja'far ibn Fallah. Per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE this battle is better discussed in those broader articles rather than existing as a separate page. A merge or redirect would be more appropriate than a standalone article. Hirematviru (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely not significant coverage in the book cited, can't find anything obviously significant on Google Books. FDW777 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created wrapped in a markdown code block from a chatbot response, there is both a leading ```wiki and a trailing ``` in Diff/1361102398. Then a second trailing ``` from a markdown code block was added in Diff/1361103383. This is completely generated by an LLM and should be deleted. No comment on the notability of the subject. ‑‑gurkubondinn13:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Page that was previously WP:BLAR as a redirect to Heliosphere#Structure on March 23rd. This was reverted on April 1st. The editor who redirected and the redirect editor opened a discussion on the talk page, but minimal input from involved editors there. Page currently has tags for AI and notability. Rather than leaving this hanging around much longer I am sending it to AfD for a wider discussion. Note: I am not voting as I do not know this science. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heliosphere and add a human-written summary of heliospheric models including Enlil. Fails WP:SIGCOV. For context, Enlil is one of many different models of the inner heliosphere used to propagate solar wind, CMEs, etc. from the upper corona to Earth and beyond. Enlil is perhaps the most widely known because it is relevant outside of academic research as one component of the WSA-Enlil model used by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center to provide space weather forecasts useful for affected industries, aurora chasers, etc. (MacNeice et al., 2018, ref 9 in the article, gives a comprehensive overview of the various models designed to provide solar wind forecasts. Table 1 therein gives 15 corona + inner heliosphere models that do not use Enlil at all.)
From my experience, the breadth of the likely LLM-aggregated sample of sources covering Enlil provided in the article is representative of the actual breadth of Enlil sources out there; that is, most secondary sources are either press releases about space weather/aurora or academic papers that mention Enlil as one component of a larger global solar wind model being studied (e.g., WSA-Enlil, WSA-Enlil+Cone, MAS-Enlil). I do not believe that this amounts to significant coverage sufficient to justify an article dedicated to Enlil alone. However, I think that Enlil is notable enough to cover together with other models in Heliosphere or something like Heliospheric models because such models, when coupled with corona and CME models, are an important tool for studying and predicting conditions in the heliosphere and, when considered together, do receive significant coverage.
Corporate spam for a French travel insurance company. This article is a declared paid contribution which bypassed AfC, and appears to be AI-generated. I previously nominated this for speedy deletion, following which it was draftified by Deb, before being moved back to mainspace by a different user who creates similar brochures. All that aside, I don't see a whole lot of substance in the references anyway. Another one for the pile. MediaKyle (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, but Europ Assistance is a company I'd heard of so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. User:Balabush should be given a chance to explain why s/he thought that the article was suitable for mainspace. Deb (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the FR wiki (the first two) are insurance trade magazines, so not used to show notability. I can only find press releases [1]. Merge or redirect to Generali perhaps? Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (article author; paid/COI, disclosed on my user page and talk page).I will not take a position on this matter and leave the decision to uninvolved contributors. I acknowledge that the article was written as part of a paid assignment. I have added new independent secondary sources.Regarding the trade press: two of the three most reliable sources are not publications specializing in insurance, but rather the leading general business dailies in their respective countries.“Les Échos” (January 16, 2018), “How Europ Assistance Plans to Accelerate”, the leading French business daily;“Il Sole 24 Ore” (December 28, 2019), a feature on the group’s digital activities, Italy’s leading business daily.“L’Argus de l’Assurance” is, as noted, a specialized publication (although its article cites its own sources, not a press release). Pandananas (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Assicurazioni Generali (under their France & Global Business Activities unit). Merging the verified historical facts into it's parent company's article satisfies WP:CORP but removes a standalone piece of corporate marketing promotion. MissBVCC (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Assicurazioni Generali. As the editor who moved this to mainspace, I'll note I have no objection to a merge. the sourcing is largely primary, and the verifiable history fits fine in the parent article. Balabush (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clearly failing WP:NOLLM, making this a complete nonstarter before even considering notability, which seems to be lacking anyway. If this corporation becomes notable somehow, then someone else can write (not generate) an article about it then, preferably without being paid to do it. On that note, I also oppose merging because you shouldn't be able to pay to get your corporation mentioned in an article. ‑‑gurkubondinn21:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete> Weak keep. 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]
Weak Delete, but I am ready to change this to aWeak Keep. The membership of AANA is more than 60K, so being editor-in-chief of their journal (founded in 1933) may pass WP:NPROF#C8. Being elected as a Fellow may qualify under #C3. The big problem is that the sources do not verify the claims, and many are dead links. None of the scanners I routinely use believe this is AI, and the nom has not provided any evidence for UPE/COI or rationale for tagging this as AI. Note: both the page creator and nom have relatively few edits which raises red flags in my mind. I am very much on the fence here, and feel this needs more investigation.Ldm1954 (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a stack of cleanup, refbombing removal and source merging I have changed my vote. The claims in the page about her being a Fellow & Editor-in-Chief are correct, although the referencing may need more work. I see no major AI indications, I am highly dubious that the nom really did a WP:BEFORE, I think something else is going on here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avesta Ketamine and Wellness. If there was not an existing vote by @Athel cb I would consider this as eligible for an SK2 Speedy Keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:25, 26 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.
Merge, things like this are a big part of what these bilateral relations articles are for. We don't need separate articles every time there's a disagreement internationally. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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]
There's been two cleanup passes here: [2] and [3] I don't see anything that I recognized as AI prose here now. Do you still see any issues? Scarpy (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm going to remove the ai generated banner. Is that the only concern, or do you have further thoughts on WP:GNG as it applies here? Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. That said, I've seen the discussion on the AI noticeboard and I must say I'm absolutely disgusted by the way the editor who authored the article has been treated. They acknowledged freely to have used Grammarly for light proofreading and that was it, there is no significant evidence to the contrary, and yet he was repeatedly harassed on the noticeboard until they left active editing. If there was any violation of LLM usage policy, that was utterly technical and not related to the real problems the LLM policy was meant to counter, that is a flood of an unreasonable amount of AI-slop articles impossible to verify. I am shocked by how LLM patrolling is creating a climate of suspicion and, now I see, driving away good faith editors. This is a shame that has nothing to do with keeping LLM at bay. --cyclopiaspeak!09:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are an issue, of course; they were an issue even much before LLMs (I'm here since 2004, I've always seen that happening). That doesn't change that such behavior is concerning, as much and more than LLM usage. cyclopiaspeak!08:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was clearly an accomplished legal professional, but that said I'm not finding RS to support notability. His name comes up a lot in Google search, but nearly all in trial documents - where he was doing his job. The obituaries are mostly from organizations he was associated with. I did find that he wrote some professional materials (see below), but I can't find more about them with one exception: The rights of railway workers which went to two editions. For most authors we usually require reviews or "best seller lists" and I can't find either.
North Country Lawyer DA Robb - Mich. BJ, 1985 - HeinOnline
Use of lay witnesses to prove medical testimony DA Robb - Prac. Law., 1962 - HeinOnline
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES 1963-1964 RE McKean, EA Blaty, RJ Osborne, JS Burak, DA Robb… - HeinOnline
Checklist: Plaintiff's Opening Statement Personal Injury Case D Robb - Guild Prac., 1966 - HeinOnline
Keep, seems to meet notability clearly to pass GNG. P.S. I was appalled when I saw the discussion on the AI Noticeboard - that is a ridiculous and in my opinion awful way to treat a seemingly good faith editor. Jishara (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 ([5], [6], [7], [8]), 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([9]) through 2026([10]), 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([11]), regional([12]), national([13]), and even some international([14] check at 1h 5min mark) coverage.
3. The articles cover different aspects of the subject's public life, including nonprofit work([15]), political activity([16]), media involvement([17]), and community advocacy([18]).
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([19]) through 2026([20]), 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([21]), regional([22]), national([23]), and even some international([24] check at 1h 5min mark) coverage.
3. The articles cover different aspects of the subject's public life, including nonprofit work([25]), political activity([26]), media involvement([27]), and community advocacy([28]).
4. The editor who initiated Article for Deletion used these examples as possible notability, ([29], [30], [31], [32]).
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]
Delete - I grew up in the Bronx, I taught in the Bronx from 2017 to 2021, and I have many family members and friends there who keep me up to date with politics and other goings on there. The subject is completely not notable, even if the LLM issue were to be resolved. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 27 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)
