11 Nov 2026 –ScienceOne(talk·edit·hist) was PRODed by Kowal2701 (t·c): Presumptive removal of LLM-generated content, see Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/System tinker 90. Please do not remove this tag without following the procedures for disputing presumptive removal of LLM-generated content.
Delete: I only see obituaries for others with the same name. Appears to be a non-notable individual, article reads as a CV. Should be ok to delete per their wishes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete As the subject is borderline famous, out of courtesy towards their wish. Also there's LLM jargon and the article reads like a resume. X (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Previously deleted article recreated as Mizanur Rahman Azhari (scholar), disambiguated to bypass the WP:SALTing of the current title. Content is different from previously deleted versions, hence my removal of the WP:G4 speedy deletion tag, but I'm not convinced this individual passes WP:NBIO from the English sources I can access. Editors who read Bengali can likely give a fuller picture, but from my perspective it seems like most of the sources are low quality, especially for a BLP. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk|contribs) 08:48, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: From my assessment, he does meet WP:NBASIC. contains significant coverage of him. does as well, although it is in Bengali. also provides sigcov, though I am not sure about its reliability... — Raihanur(talk)09:17, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete He's supposedly become more notable since the last deletion, that doesn't appear to be the case. His currently references post-deletion activities are being refused entries to a couple of places, and speaking at a few rallies, the latter of which is generally covered in a brief name-check and nothing more. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC, as Mizanur Rahman Azhari has received regular coverage in independent reliable sources, including news media such as Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, The Business Standard, and The Daily Telegraph, showing his significance as a prominent Islamic preacher in Bangladesh. His notability should be assessed on his public influence and independent coverage rather than academic citation counts. Any shortcomings in the article's sourcing or neutrality can be addressed through improvements instead of deletion. Rossi101 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep My edits were not made to artificially inflate an edit count, they are genuine, contributions made across various pages. This includes contributions to historical pages along with tonal and grammatical fixes across various wikipedia pages.
I moved the article to the wikipedia mainspace after thoroughly scrubbing the prose to address prior feedback and ensuring it complies with policy. The article is supported by multiple independent, reliable historical sources
H.G. Raverty's Notes on Afghanistan and Part of Baluchistan (1888)
H.A. Rose's A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province (1911)
The Baluchistan District Gazetteers (Loralai District, 1907)
Translation of Nimatullah al-Harawi's Makhzan-i-Afghani (c. 1612) by Bernard Dornhe.
General Staff, Army Headquarters, India (1910). A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes on the North-West Frontier of India
Khan, Hafiz Rahmat (1761). Khulasat-ul-Ansab.
Planning & Development Department, Government of Balochistan; UNICEF (18 July 2011). District Development Profile: Musakhel (Report). Quetta: Government of Balochistan.
Hughes-Buller, R. (1907). Baluchistan District Gazetteer *Series: Vol. II, Loralai District. Allahabad: Pioneer Press.
Bray, Denys (1913). Census of India, 1911. Volume IV: Baluchistan (PDF). Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing
MacGregor, Charles Metcalfe (1873). Central Asia. Part I: A Contribution Towards the Better Knowledge of the Topography, Ethnography, Statistics, and History of the North-West Frontier of British India. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. pp. 24-25.
Delete: Typical Nigerian sourcing, with what reads as a CV here. I don't see notability. Nothing found outside of these sources. Awards appear non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
This is someone who is adequately notable by African standards as a technology executive. If you search the company he owns, you would see various sources that are not even in the article listed and now him as well.@Oaktree bOyindebrah (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The same sources always appear in these articles, and are known for brown envelope journalism, pay to play. These sources are poor, but the only ones available, for the country. Newsorgnigeria is the relevant page to look at. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
This article was written by hand and I have also edited it again - genuinely shocked with the LLM generated label being placed on the article. Some of us are adequately well educated enough to write and we are not LLMs or robots. We went to good schools, gained good education and use it to write. Oyindebrah (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Support. AI or not, even juding from refs, it is a hopeless WP:SYNTH impossible to clean. it was created by a SPA, and it looks like it was a student assignment. I've been cleaning after SPAs Wikiversity for years, and nos ttudents discovered new ways to handle essay assignments in a lazy way. I think this shop must be closed or allowed only under tight scrutiny of responsible wikipedians, with 2-5 years ofexperience. --Altenmann>talk17:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Hello, I originally authored the page.
I understand the concerns and I have started looking at additional independent sources to see if the topic warrants a standalone article. I will update with my findings. Thank you for raising this. Todayisagreatday (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (am NPPer who nominated it for deletion the first go-around) the UPE's and an editor in good standing brought up 1.5 to 2 sources that could plausibly contribute to sigcov under NCORP, which is not the three required. The article is also AI-generated, given the AISIGNS in the article and the UPE farms use of AI in AfD discussions. If this is an actually notable topic, an editor will come around and create it without generating it with AI in defiance of NOLLM or as an UPE. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I work for Senior Lifestyle and this was not AI generated and is factual information about the company. i am happy to talk with anyone who thinks otherwise. ~2026-59953-78 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
There should be a new rule that requires an account to be 14 days old to participate in AFDs, if we are going to keep seeing UPEs coming in. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
What does this mean? Are you a real person. Senior Lifestyle has been targeted by someone asking for this account to be deleted and then asking us to pay to help keep the account alive. Please know that the same people targeting Senior Lifestyle for deletion have reached our to executives at Senior Lifestyle offering their services for hire. This should not be allowed by Wiki as I thought this was a reader and author based platform. ~2026-59953-78 (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was written by Bharatwikiexpert, now blocked for promotion; substantially edited by NarasinghP, now blocked for LLM use; and then by Truthseekerindian, now blocked as a sock of Bharatwikiexpert (or vice versa). There is no substantial text from other editors. The article appears promotional and also LLM-generated. Discussion at AINB suggested that LLMPROD can't be used as multiple authors are (maybe) involved, so I am bringing to AfD. I do not think anything here should be salvaged: WP:TNT is a better response to this mixture of UPE, sockpuppetry, and LLM. M kuhner (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep. Too many of the sources are interviews, but the fact that major publications like the San Francisco Examiner choose to interview her still speaks to notability. Other GNG-worthy sources about her or her organizations include:
Keep: Although it is true that there is some concerns about UPE, but overall, sources looks significant and secondary enough to be passed on as a keep. BengalMCtalk03:50, 4 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Some shocking keep arguments here. Being listed as a LinkedIn Top 10 influencer 11 years ago is not an indication of notability per WP:NBIO. Lacking significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep fails WP:AUTHOR but clear WP:BASIC, which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. I ran some searches and InfoWorld,Fast Company appeared. Note: I didn't ran any search on newspapers.com. ~2026-59396-24 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Note to editors advocating keep here that they've assumed the burden of LLMPRVOBJ if the article is understood to contain LLM generated content, prior to any affirmative determination in favor of retention.
I've been participating in AfDs for over twenty years and I've never heard of "listing tags" before. Yours is the first comment in the discussion to mention LLMs. Please elaborate. pburka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Economics, Engineering, Computing, Suspected AI-generated articles, India, West Bengal, United States of America, and Massachusetts.
Oh! You mean deletion sorting lists. Those are used to attract attention from interested editors. If the nominator wishes to add LLM use to the deletion rationale they need to say so explicitly, and provide some evidence. Editors can't be expected to infer rationale from sorting lists! pburka (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
That’s reasonable. My point was that given the potential it’s the responsibility of those advocating keep per LLMPRVOBJ to ensure that there’s no trace of LLM generated content before it could clear on notability grounds.
This would be a Kafkaesque burden. Until someone presents a claim and evidence of LLM use, nobody has any obligation to "fix" a non-existent problem. pburka (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I honestly don't remember why I put that in suspected AI sorting. Maybe some WP:AISIGNS? But it's really not anything obvious now I look at it. I think it might be better if we just ignore the AI tag for now. My bad. –TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 19:57, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
This article is based on a single primary source (research paper) and I have not been able to find any reliable additional sources. The author is under investigation at WP:AI noticeboard/Simfish but this article is short and not clearly LLM, though I note that the CAS number is incorrect and might be hallucinated. In any case it fails WP:GNG. M kuhner (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep I added the CAS number from PubChem source. The cross does not mean that it is incorrect, just that it has not been checked by an independent person against an authoritative source, such as the CAS database. So that part of the argument is debunked. The substance is actually for sale: or in catalogs . And so important enough to have an article here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The link given in the article does not work. However the given CAS number does show up in a large number of product catalogs, so there is some reason to believe it's correct. I don't have database access to check it: do you? A correct link here would be very helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Keep (article creator). Replying to the points raised:
SYNTH: Membership comes directly from each franchise's season article (the squad tables), and the title counts are simple tallies of those entries (WP:CALC), not a new conclusion. I am open to replace the per-player profile refs with per-season squad sources so each season is verifiable.
NLIST: The set is well defined (players in a title-winning squad), and reliable sources do discuss title-winning players as a group, for example the most-titles lists by CricketTimes and Sportskeeda. I accept that coverage is thinner for players with one title, but sources do confirm this and they are mentioned in wp squad bases. The scope of the article can also be altered.
INDISCRIMINATE / NOTDATABASE: The list is bounded by a stated criterion and is a navigational aid to the squad articles, with context in the lead and by-team and by-nationality summaries, rather than raw data.
Delete. According to this AI checker, this article displays signs it was LLM-generated. Other articles by the creator were also LLM-generated. The results for this article:
I don't think that LordPharoah is using LLMs. Also, @Aneirinn, you put this article into GPTZero, it tells you it isn't AI-generated (99.4% human), and still !vote to delete it on that basis? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmm, it doesn't read like AI to me, and wp squad bases is a human sign (I think? normally would be capitalised), but Pangram also says AI . There's also more evidence of LLM use found in the AINB thread, so it looks like I was wrong here. Odd because in addition to the false positives for markdown their denials seem genuine, AI-generated sports articles that are mostly tables are such a pain to detect Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:43, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Each champion's season article already has this information and the superlatives are pointed out in each player's article (along with a mention of '1x IPL champion'), and this is otherwise duplicative and long, never mind if an LLM generated this or someone typed it all by hand. Nathannah • 📮17:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The previous target lists every party of every state except Hawaii, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. It contains no information whatsoever on the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, except an out-of-date listing for chairperson and whether it had ballot access four years ago. Idacticus (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The first nomination was for a completely different reason. Is that the reason we should discuss, or would you prefer to discuss whether it was LLM-generated? Idacticus (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
KEEP :The vertical list seemed to be the best way to present a summary of a platform that is originally divided into these concepts. (https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/platform) Any rule of 3 was an accident of my attempts to summarize their positions, and I'd be happy to get any constructive criticism on how to do it better. The curly quote marks are from a copy and paste of a specific term I wanted to make sure I spelled correctly from the article cited (https://www.libertarianhawaii.com/history), and I didn't notice they were a different format. The only thing I used a large language model for on this was getting citations. Idacticus (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Idacticus (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete To prevent the quiet resurrection of this non-notable article. Irrespective of AI use, this fails WP:NORG. Sources provided do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of the state party. AusLondonder (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep but stubify: Definitely notable (see , but even the "rewritten" version of this article is still AI-generated and the LLM content needs to be quarantined. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep: The writing looks nothing like LLMs. The only noted signs of LLM usage were citations to Wikipedia and Grokipedia, which are very weak indicators for LLM-generated text. Any concerns with original research and poorly sourced content can be dealt with by removing portions of the text. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Looks like I put most of it in the tag, created with references to Grokipedia and circular references to Wikipedia. There were also more circular references to Wikipedia added in Diff/1371877542.
Weak keep, as I found some reviews and from poking around on Google (more coverage is likely on Proquest), although if it is AI-generated, another user will have to add the sources and rewrite the article to keep. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and rewrite. Satisfies GNG. There is also some other coverage in Google Books (eg in a history book from University of Texas Press and an album review in Rap Pages ) and Google News (eg The Source ). The article was created in 2011, so all you have to do is revert the page to the last human generated version, which appears to be the revision of 17 March 2014. The wikiproject essay WP:HUMANSIGNS says we can assume that edits made before 30 November 2022 were entirely human generated. James500 (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
On September 19, 2026, I PROD'd this article for the following reasons: "Pretty much any source anyone is gonna find on this topic will be of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is already its own article. Otherwise, there's no evidence of notability." I will admit, I was also motivated by the inclusion of the AI-generated tag.
JASpencerobjected to this, saying that notwithstanding clauses are a common legal provision beyond Section 33, before going on to expand the article. However, one month later, and I am still not convinced. In his bid to prove the subject's notability, he could only find one reliable, secondary source that discussed the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth. Given that the search for evidence of this subject's notability has turned up short, this article should be deleted. Lazman321 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The CRS only talks about one notwithstanding clause in-depth within the context a specific law and doesn't really discuss the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth, which isn't a strong indicator of notability. BBC does not talk about any notwithstanding clause, both in general or in context, in-depth. Brick Court Chambers is a self-published blog, and the House of Commons Library is a repository of primary sources. Lazman321 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'll be doing a keep comment when I have time, but a suggested compromise doesn't seem to have been tried - which is to rename the general worldwide legal principle which we are discussing to something like Non Obstante Clause and pointing Notwithstanding Clause to the article that is narrowly limited to Canada, as the more common search tetm. This should satisfy the Canadian nationalists while keeping the general legal and constitutional concept safely in what is supposed to be an Encyclopedia.
Keep This is an important concept in legal drafting that is not just present in Canada but also the United Kingdom, Australia, India and the United States - and that's limited to what is in the article.
I quite understand the argument that the phrase "Notwithstanding Clause" is shorthand for an important and often reported element in Canada's constitutional arrangements, but a competing use of a term has never been an argument for excluding another legitimate, let alone more general and abstract, use of the term. I do accept that this opens up a question of the ownership of the address for "Notwithstanding Clause", but suppression of a legitimate and more general article on which the particular Canadian example is based is not an appropriate use of the AfD process.
On a small technical note I think that the nominator has become confused about reliable secondary sources when "only" citing a legal textbook probably by looking at Sources rather than References; as they have missed a national broadcaster, a barristers' chambers and the official research services for the British Parliament and the US Congress.
Wikipedia is big enough for two articles, which is just as well as if one of the articles should be merged into the other it would be the Canadian example rather than the Common Law principle on which the example is based. The problem is that we don't have one URL, but that's a question of naming rather than deletion.
Delete - the examples (other than the Canadian one) seem to be about the use of the word "notwithstanding" in legal documents, not "Notwithstanding clause" as it's own thing. It could be kept as "Notwithstanding (legal term)" or something. But clearly the main current use of "notwithstanding clause" is the Canadian example. SECProto (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
So an article tagged as containing AI-generated content with little to no evidence of meeting WP:GNG must be kept because...we want to keep people away from Grokpedia? We shouldn't be basing our decisions on whether it will lead to readers to switch to Grokpedia; we should be basing them on whether it will improve Wikipedia. Do you have multiple secondary sources that analyze the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth? Lazman321 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That's not the notability criteria. The criteria is whether there is evidence that it's being used. And there's plenty of evidence of that. JASpencer (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
That has never been the notability criteria. WP:GNG says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And it does clarify that by sources, it means multiple secondary sources, as in sources that analyze primary sources such as laws. Lazman321 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nominator's argument is that the we need at least two examples of significant coverage prescinding from Section 33, and at present we only have one. But here is one that concerns law in India. And here is another (esp., but not limited to, pp 237–244), dealing with U.S. law. Searching for the term non obstante will reveal many others. Arbitrarily0(talk)00:55, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anti-Grokpedia sentiment aside, sources can be added and LLM content cleaned up during this discussion. Meanwhile, I took the liberty of creating Non obstanteNon obstante as a redirect. The two pages can be swapped once this AfD is closed, if needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:19, 3 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Stubbify and move to Non obstante as the best alternative to deletion. It is dangerous to leave LLM text around as its problems are more subtle than most other bad text and it can hang around for a long time. If this option is chosen I will volunteer to stubbify, if no one else wants to: please ping me. M kuhner (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Stub or send back to draft, as explained above. Heck the Section 33 of the Canadian law could be further broken down by the number of times the present government in Ontario has used it or threatened to use it... This version of the article needs to be rewritten as explained; the "clause" in question seems to be a unique Canadian thing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Move and Stubbify per the last two comments above - I support these to accomplish same goals i mentioned in my comment from Oct 29 above. With the relisting, not sure if i should be revising/striking through my previous comment, so I just wrote this revised opinion here. SECProto (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
You should strike it through even though it is above the relist line, otherwise it's possible the closer will miss that you've !voted twice. M kuhner (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Apart from the one source given that just links to google scholar, no other mentions I can find about the place. Falls into WP:GNG pretty sure. PeepeeDino (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Info - Note on soft closure: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: not eligible for soft deletion on account of a previous AfD closed as keep Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salviogiuliano07:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose merging to Zia-ul-Haq, as the article doesn't demonstrate independent notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG sufficient for a separate article. Claims to her notability appear to rest on three things: her notable family, her claimed influence on the transfer of a notable elephant, and her meeting with a notable exile on his return. Most of the coverage I can find online is brief coverage of that meeting per WP:BLP1E, with the rest being passing mentions. I could find no reliable secondary coverage that's just about her, in English or Urdu. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Zain Zia remained popular during her father’s role. To this day she is a patron of many organisations and has a comfortable following on other platforms. There is enough information for her to have her own separate page. Her notability is not based on three things, her article hasn’t been expanded fully yet, you should consider that it’s a new article and allow it time for detail. This article should remain. Indiragandhifan (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Indiragandhifan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wiki-revisor - Claude-based diagnostic assistant that checks Spanish Wikipedia articles against the Manual of Style and reports issues for human editors to fix; it does not write or rewrite article text. WIP
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories