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.
Redirect. Do not delete. There is a viable alternative to deletion here, AI is not a rationale for deletion when redirection exists. The sources in a potentially AI generated article may be used to help add content to the target. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. What is "Tetraclass Model"? This article is about the concentration camp. The title makes no sense. Redirecting it will just prolong the confusion. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to the Melik Camp article. The title is completely nonsensical, and much of it seems to duplicate the content in the proposed redirect. If there's anything of use that hasn't been tainted by AI in this article it could be merged to the Melik one. Intothatdarkness00:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect because neither this article nor the proposed target mention anything resembling the title. Google Scholar found no connection. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Move back to userspace without a redirect. This page has been used for drafts of at least three different articles - one about the 1902 eruption of Mount Pelée, one about the Melk concentration camp, and one about the customer satisfaction model called the "tetraclass model". We already have articles about the former two topics, and the author appears to be working on a draft of the third at Draft:Tetraclass Model. The page history is enough of a tangle that it's probably best if it isn't used for an article. Omphalographer (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect If you take this article and the Melk concentration camp article and put them side by side and focus on the lead there is a WP:FORK issue. The infobox picture and caption is identical. Perhaps a merge would be an option depending on how much unique content is in the Tetraclass article but the sources are in bad shape. Just based on the WP:FORK issues alone the article is better deleted. Any article that was created based on this article can be changed to the Melk concentration camp article instead. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, do not redirect This/My article is a error. I wrote the article Melk concentration camp with the correct title. I will write the article on the Tetraclass model by translating the article into French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_T%C3%A9traclasse 474D6F756C617264 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Likely WP:LLM generated. A lot of weasley words, large stretches of unsourced text and random bolded phrases. There is a mish-mash of romanisation styles (Kone-baung vs. Badon, Sennwi vs. Narapatisithu) The sources cited to talk about Paw Oo but hard to support everything that is being stated. While all the sources are real books, and could have text that supports the information, I did not find a chapter on Paw Oo in the first sourced book, for example, and it's hard to find if he was mentioned randomly in one page out of 461 pages.. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Stubify Some AI assistance was certainly used given its first revision, but I don't think the entire article scans as AI-generated. I'm willing to help stubify this article since its notability is not in question. Catalk to me!04:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The article merely describes the subject's career, and nothing more. The subject is hardly notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, as even the sources are not about him, but merely cite his blog for various information. The article's history indicates that it was written by the person in question, a previous revision showing "He had an average of 7,000 RSS readers on my blog".
Additionally there are signs of LLM usage, as most of the text is written as if the result of a prompt ("Danchev's work has linked him", "reports have cited his work", "Reliable coverage has described his work", "Archived pages list him", "His analysis was cited in" and etc.)
Some links are usurped by other websites, also indicating that an LLM "recorded" them, before they were taken offline, as they were already down before the stated "retrieved" date. (example: the ""Welcome to the team, Dancho!"" source) DemieK07 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, I am not seeing the required SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources. BJJ Heroes is a blog, and Cageside Press doesn't appear to have any editorial standards ("staff" is just a very long list of enthusiasts who have contributed articles at a flat pay rate, not paid editors and professional journalists). MMA Junkie has just a very routine, primary result recap. JoelleJay (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep (article creator). The article has been substantially rewritten and re-sourced since nomination (edits since nomination); please assess the current version.
Sourcing. Every competitive grappling claim now cites primary federation records — the IBJJF's official bracket pages (2017 No-Gi Worlds gold, 2017 World Master double gold, 2013 Worlds gold) and ADCC's qualifier list. BJJ Heroes supports only uncontroversial biographical detail, the role for which it has been the sport's standard reference for over fifteen years; nothing cited to it is contested by any source (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).
SIGCOV. Bishop-focused features and interviews from independent outlets across six years, two sports and two languages:
Context. An IBJJF world champion (eleven world-championship medals in the federation's official results) who reached the 2025 PFL world tournament final and is ranked fourth at women's flyweight (PFL rankings) in what is, following the 2026 MVP merger, one of the two major MMA promotions. Her wins include five fighters with standalone articles: Kana Watanabe, Ekaterina Shakalova, Luana Santos, Elina Kallionidou and Ariane Lipski da Silva.
The article is now current through August 2026, and incoming links have been added from related articles, so the {{Orphan}} tag no longer applies. I will leave the remaining maintenance tags for uninvolved editors to assess against the current text. Shibaking (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Blogs such as BJJ Heroes are absolutely prohibited on BLPs. Your LLM forgot to mention that key policy. Sherdog can only be used--with caution--for basic info on fighters, e.g. database-type stats, it is certainly not at the high quality we require for BLPs. MMA Planet is a pure Q&A interview, zero independent secondary coverage. Bout Review has a few sentences of secondary coverage but is almost entirely blow-by-blow primary match coverage. MMA Weekly is another interview with little secondary independent coverage. Grappling Insider is clearly not RS. ESPN is casual listicle-style hype promoting upcoming bouts broadcast by ESPN, not independent or SIGCOV. FloGrappling is a routine bout recap and doesn't seem to have published editorial standards. Fox is routine event hype with barely 2 sentences of actual coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I find it hilarious that the LLM knows that the deletion rationale is for LLM use, and yet because it can't deny not being an AI it just pretends the deletion rationale is for something entirely different. (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence)msk21:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notability does not seem to be a plausible argument here. The subject is clearly notable; the question is whether it is verifiable or generated by AI. I have no idea how anyone can tell if it's AI-generated, except by using AI... but just looking down the source list, I can see that the sources themselves are not "hallucinated"; these are all sources that I know exist, though they're not cited to page, which they should be, and one of the citations is incomplete. And since all of them are 19th-century sources, none of them remain under copyright. So the main question remains whether the article text can be verified by checking them. Currently Internet Archive (IA, not to be confused with AI) is being stubborn and not loading pages... but there's nothing that looks implausible to me yet. A secondary, but minor concern is that these sources are partly related: the original DGRA, which seems to be the main source, was used to compile the "shorter" DGRA, and IMO Harper's probably relied on it as well, though in some areas Harper's is more thorough. There should also be some primary source citations, but I imagine these can be pulled from the cited sources. More recent sources should also be added, though I understand why some editors rely primarily on convenient sources that are easily findable, such as these. All of which can be fixed through ordinary editing. As can any issues with the language itself being potentially AI-generated, since this is a very short article. So as long as I can verify the contents, it'd be a keep. P Aculeius (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete. PC Gamer is a strong source but it is exactly one strong source. The rest of the sources feature such highlights as a high school newspaper, a porn site, and a bunch of pages that don't exist. Even if it can squeak by on coverage, the WP:LLM usage means it would need to be WP:TNTed anyway. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: this has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since May 2025, and a potential LLM-generated article since June 2025. (No opinion, but it might show how our patience with LLM-generated content–which was very thin as it was–has only further evaporated in the past year–I'm not sure it would take even that long for such an article to come to AfD anymore.) WCQuidditch☎✎20:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment Is stubifying to address LLM concerns an option? There's a PC Gamer and Adventure Game Hotspot review (). I'd honestly prefer a little more coverage to vote keep, but these do appear two be two strong, in-depth sources from RS, and putting it out there that there's always alternatives. VRXCES (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd prefer if the article history was deleted first. It should be at least a little bit more difficult for the article to just get recreated, especially cause as far as I can tell there really isn't any non-AI text worth salvaging. That text really just shouldn't be on the website at all, otherwise I don't really know what the point of that policy is. For this one, I say delete and if it turns out there are a few more reviews out there and enough interest, someone can try again. Whipmywillows (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: this has been tagged as potentially LLM-generated since May 2025. It did survive the first nomination that same month, but that discussion was entirely based on sourcing concerns and the AI issues did not even come up at all, so that might not mean much. (No opinion in any event.) WCQuidditch☎✎20:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Lacks inline sources, and seems to claim that he begin to work as a bandeoneonist freelancer at the age of eight. The sourcing that is there seems thin.
The article has been a recent target for LLM edits from a TA (that have all been reverted, but that is how I found this article). ‑‑gurkubondinn15:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. I did some work cutting down unsourced material, and that with a promotional tone, from the article before it came to AfD. I haven't had time yet to go through all the external links and see if there is any additional coverage; I will do that and return here with an !vote. But in the meantime, if anyone wants to look at the longer version of the article to see if they find evidence of notability, it is here. Tacyarg (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. When I first read the article, the peacock prose (and the eight-year-old freelancing) made it hard to assess notability. I've now been through all the external links and written them up on the article's Talk page. Several of them are reliable sources, but only one meets all of significant coverage, not an interview, and an RS. I'm still on the fence as haven't done any searching outside the article yet. I'll come back when I have, unless other editors have reached a consensus by then. Tacyarg (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just let me know. My concern isn't to keep an article about this person out of the encyclopaedia, I just didn't think that the specific article that I saw should be in the encyclopaedia. If you're satisfied with it after your work, then I think that it should stay. Just ping me here (so I'll get a notification) or write on my talk, and I'll pull this AfD if you have an article you think should stay. ‑‑gurkubondinn19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete - we should honestly make these ChatGPT copy-pastes eligible for speedy deletion. There wasnt even an attempt to change what ChatGPT created. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
They are eligible for G15 speedy deletion if the evidence that it lacks human cleanup is clear enough, as it may be in this case. We also have the WP:LLMPROD process for LLM-created material. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I haven't found any G15'able edits. The closest are the utm params, but it's only on one link which isn't enough for G15. Hence this AfD instead. ‑‑gurkubondinn13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:TNT and the clear LLM origin of this text (which still contains WP:LLMSIGNS), despite the pass of WP:PROF#C6. Could possibly be G15 speedy as above. I would be open to changing my mind if some non-LLM-user wants to undertake a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Where to begin. The article is clearly AI-generated, for starters, based on the formatting, nonexistent categories (edit: I meant redlinked "see also" entries), malformatted references, pointless tables, and so on. It's also FAR too detailed for a general audience, and provides essentially nothing in the way of context other than linking to the Capital Requirements Regulation (which happens to also make this page redundant). For such a detailed article there are surprisingly few citations, all of which are to primary sources, and none of which are provided with a URL (despite being fairly recent, last 15 years). If I were cynical, I would suggest this is just an AI summary of the technical portions of these primary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
delete very likely AI/LLm created, with little in-line sourcing used. Also very specialized, not suitable for a general wiki audience. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Appears to be mostly LLM-generated, doesn't seem to be notable, and not in-line sourced except a list of references, of which none seem to be reliable. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree with the diagnosis of LLM: The exact reasons for its closure are not widely detailed, but changes in media landscapes, evolving listener habits, and strategic decisions by media groups can lead to such closures or format changes is typical LLM waffle when it doesn't know something. M kuhner (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Lots of WP:AISIGNS requiring erasure. A major metro radio station would be notable with the right sourcing, and someone with more specialty in Sweden might want to try their hand. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete as failing NOLLM after the expansion in Diff/1293050933 (the user's talk page is rather colourful), and prior to that it was an unreferenced stub. I might change my !vote if someone found an RS and reverted to the old stub. ‑‑gurkubondinn03:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete it, diagnosis of LLM seems correct. No comment on notability of the subject, and nothing against someone writing an article about the park. ‑‑gurkubondinn03:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I propose to delete because this article is poorly sourced, with some paragraphs being completely unsourced, is poorly written (with some likely assistance from a LLM), and the tornado itself fails #1, #2, #3, and #5 of the WP:NTORNADO criteria, as it has no significant coverage, no lasting coverage, had no casualties, and did not significantly damage a town. All the content in this article is better covered by April 2011 Iowa tornadoes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support — This article is not properly cited and fails against many of the outlined policies for Wikipedia articles. This is yet another example of this user abusing their power to move articles to the main space. Sobriquetical (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support per above. Also, note the user is working on several tornado and tornado-related articles and should be advised on how to pivot to being productive instead of being disruptive. - In solidarity, UtherSRG(talk)18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete Likely LLM-generated, including emotionally charged language and superficial analysis, e.g.: The 2011 Pocahontas tornado left a prominent legacy within the meteorological community as a definitive case study in complex multi-vortex supercell behavior, specifically regarding the mechanics of satellite tornadoes out-rating their primary parent systems. and The people who lived in the house on one of these farms were very lucky. Other articles by the same user show signs of LLM-generated content as well, and all were created mostly in one go with no sources initially. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not finding support for the idea that this topic is notable -- there are certainly books written in similar molds, but scholars do not appear to have treated all of them from 1840 to 2019 as a single category worthy of analysis. Still, it's a bit of a synthfest and it certainly feels like it should be a notable topic, so I may be/would be happily proven wrong (even if we have to do some WP:TNT on the article as it stands). Otherwise, I'd like to see a merge of what's salvageable to Russian imperialism and Russian literature. Ed[talk][OMT]16:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep and stubify because @Eddie891: has presented sources that show this topic is notable. So stubify, and affix the presented sources, so there is the possibility to build a new article based on reliable information from reliable sources. Or, it seems there would be enough content to build a section or two for Merging content into Russian imperialism and Russian literature. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Eddie891 and The ed17 I am thinking it would be best to change the title of this article to reflect the presented sources. I am not sure what that would be though. And it cannot be done until the AfD is complete. So, I am thinking that the title would somehow have the words "Russian," "Empire," and "Literature" or "Fiction". I don't think colonialism is a good fit at the moment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I do think if we keep this should be moved towards "Russian imperialism in fiction", there's not a ton to say on the colonialism. And it's almost more about "imperialism in Russian literature" than the other way around. Eddie891TalkWork12:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Draftify and require to go through WP:AFC per WP:ATD. Use of a large language model, WP:Original synthesis issues, and large passages of unsourced material show this article is not yet ready for article space. As a recent article creation, this is a perfect candidate for a move to draft.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Seconding draftify: There's an article here, but it's not ready yet. Also agree with the proposal above of dropping colonialism from the title. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖19:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 34 & 3.4K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No awards and most of the page is promo that would be removed if the page is retained. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete, for the reasons given. The page claims that she is in the Stanford University list of top 2% scientists, but curiously the link given is to a page in Polish (which I can't read). Why not give a link to the list itself, at https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/? Searching for her name yields "no matching result found", however I write her name. It finds scientists I know with no problem, so it's not that I don't know how to search it. Athel cb (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Piotrus: do you mean the deletion sorting as WP:DSAIGEN (I haven't tagged the article)? In that case, it was because me and Ldm1954 briefly discussed it in User talk:Ldm1954 §User:Dropkin26 and have reasons to suspect that the user has been submitting AI-generated articles. But I have not really paid attention to these articles since then, hence I also haven't !voted here. ‑‑gurkubondinn11:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In addition to the LLM issues, there are no sources present that help this pass WP:NBOOK. There are questionably reliable interviews and nothing else; interviews can be helpful to build out an article but do not help notability unless there is substantial independent content in the piece, which is not the case here. A search found no other sources that are all 3 of independent, significant coverage, and reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
hi, thank you for your note. In addition to the The Times newspaper reference, and Crack magazine end of year list refrenced. The book was subject to at least two independent reviews from note worthy print magazines. Would proof of those reviews help? ~2026-41850-33 (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Those sources are interviews or do not have sigcov on the book.
Comment Right now, I’m not seeing enough here to count these as proper reviews. The wire and mojo citations are missing page numbers and do not show any details how much coverage there was. The wax poetics one is even shakier and may just be a blurb. Until someone provides fuller citations or copies, I would not use them for WP:NBOOK. Charlie Zachary Allen Roth (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: With the reviews, keep in mind that sourcing doesn't have to be on the internet to establish notability - it just has to be verifiable. In other words, in this situation we often have to assume that the reviews are of a proper length unless we have evidence to the contrary (ie, magazine doesn't do reviews, they only do capsules, etc). So rather than address the potential length of the reviews, the better option would be to look at if the outlets themselves are reliable or not. That said, it would also be very good to have page numbers for these reviews if that is available. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)16:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment The review in The Wire (paywalled but partly visible in their issue reader) is a full column long, and does say what the article claims (although I'm not sure the author's name is right?). Mojo would also be an RS if someone can check it and fill out the ref properly. I'm unsure about Wax Poetics; the current incarnation doesn't look much like an RS. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Author has admitted to LLM use (see WP:AINB §User:Global Donald) and article has clear WP:AISIGNS. LLMPROD repeatedly contested but I don't think the LLM text has been adequately cleaned up. As a separate issue, the vast majority of citations appear to be WP:CORPTRIV and I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. M kuhner (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep This article covers the most notable investment coalition related to carbon dioxide removal-- after major tech companies such as Google and Microsoft, they are the single largest source of investment in the space.
I reviewed the sources and claims on the document, and have reviewed the framing/language use: this is consistent with over 5 years of monitoring these topics. Yes it included AI text at one point in history, before the policy about AI text was in place. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem if you think the flavor of the text is not neutral -- however, all the sources and the claims check out for me (with 20 years of work on wiki, and over 7 years working on climate topics). Sadads (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I will respectfully ask that you look specifically for claims cited to source A but only verified by source B. This is a serious problem with recent LLM and it is difficult for a topic expert to catch because every claim seems reasonable. However "this is supported by A" when it is only supported by B is still a falsehood.
Would also be interested in an analysis of how the large block of text on dollar values of investments is not WP:CORPTRIV, and what are the three best sources for notability. M kuhner (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I just went back and double checked all the double or triple citations again (for at least the third time) they map to the specific factual claims.
Moreover, the coalitions purchases/investments are covered in Bloomberg, Rueters, WSJ, and Anxios -- alongside ample industry or climate press.
IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to block the existence of an article, especially when it is at the center of an industry. I am not bullish on Carbon dioxide removal, nor particularly like Frontier as a company. BUT their investments are ubiquitous in this space, and includes a lot of money from major actors -- making it notable simply as from it significance as a funder. Sadads (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There's no IDONTLIKEIT here. This is one of 600+ articles with significant contribution from an admitted LLM using editor and I'm just working my way through them. Thank you for checking the sources, that's extremely helpful. I will let the AfD run through in the hopes of getting more comments on notability, but I think we can consider the LLM issue dealt with. (I wasn't able to do this myself, because again, 600 articles.) M kuhner (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis against NCORP? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug!07:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep but stubify. Refs. 16, 18, and (maybe) 14 are RS with significant coverage (but seem awfully close to churnalism to me). The rest of the sources, however, are obvious PR releases and/or blog posts which are completely unsuitable for notability. If all the specifics we can find on a company come from press releases, we can't really have a detailed article, but I do think WP:NCORP is just barely met. So a stub seems appropriate. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Looking at refs 16, 18 and 14 (as mentioned by WeirdNAnnoyed above, #16 is a regurgitated company announcement PR which can also be found (with the same date/time and text) in this Frontier and this TechCrunch article. There is no independent content, fails ORGIND. Then #18 looks good because it has independent content, but it has insufficient in-depth content on the company, focussing instead on deals with two particular partners, fails CORPDEPTH. Finally #14 relies entirely on stuff that an executive told Reuters, and the author has added no independent content, fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
According to this link, the case is 20 pages. The abstract notes: "In 2022, online payments company Stripe launched a new effort under the leadership of new head of Stripe Climate, Nan Ransohoff, called Frontier. This new entity was founded by five major companies with the goal of accelerating the development of carbon removal technologies through an “Advance Market Commitment” (AMC). Though it may not fit perfectly within Stripe’s core business, the payment company’s involvement in carbon removal could help it explore new business opportunities, while betting big on a high-impact sector with potentially large payoffs down the line."
The article was released under the free license CC BY 4.0. The article notes: "The table is hosted by the privately owned ‘Frontier Climate’. Frontier Climate is a for-profit company owned by fintech giant Stripe Inc. founded with global Big Tech corporations, Google, Meta, Shopify and global consultancy firm McKinsey. ... We argue that the institutions Frontier Climate aims to pull into these processes form an experimenting-with both academic and governance spaces. ... This paper focuses on the infrastructure (including software) of Frontier Climate and its expansion in both the EU regulation space and the ‘Carbon Valley’, Nairobi, Kenya, a proposed industrial hub which aims to turn carbon emissions into financial opportunities and renewable energy offtake agreements for artificial intelligence, cloud computing, cloud storage, crypto-mining and others. We trace how Frontier Climate and it founders, Big Tech corporations, Google, Meta, Shopify and global consultancy firm McKinsey, attempt to re-crack the sub/surface in Carbon Valley to ‘permanently store’ carbon in the deep basalt strata in the Kenyan Rift Valley through an extension of financial payment infrastructure and cloud regimes. ... The activities of companies like Stripe, Google, Meta, J.P. Morgan and McKinsey in forming Frontier Climate and investing in sites like the Great Carbon Valley exemplify a form of global takeover that focuses on naturalising the obliteration of life, in the quest of extreme experimentation for new horizons of accumulation, resource grabbing and profit."
The article notes: "For example, The Institute for Technology inthe Public Interest created a report (ParisBurning 2024) against Frontier Climate (a consortium of Big Tech companies established to manage commitments related to carbon removal), protesting Frontier Climate’s emphasis on advanced market commitments for carbon removal. The report’s authors advocate for collective action against and in-vestment away from Frontier Climate, calling for a more in-clusive and effective approach to climate change and transition to addressing the causes of climate change, rather thanusing carbon removal as a justification for continued fossil fuel use (ParisBurning 2024). A significant challenge for members of this group is the lack of transparency in emissions that limits data on AI's carbon footprint. As a result, both critics and advocates face difficulties in quantifying and communicating the extent of AI’s environmental impact, which hinders efforts to develop effective mitigation strategies."
Comment I disagree. The problem as I see it lies in the lack of clear "independent content" about the company - it isn't enough that the publisher and author, as an organisation and a person, are independent, but that the *content* must clearly contain original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. There is no clear evidence that any of those sources contain such independent content and the onus falls on those claiming that they do, to show it. Just because the references originate from academic sources does not mean they provide content which can be used to establish notability. Looking at the sources above:
This is labelled a case study designed as a teaching aid, not as a piece of research. The blurb says (my bolding) In this case, students will learn about carbon removal technologies, Stripe Climate and the intersection of climate technologies and digital payment as well as collaborative efforts among corporations on the climate front. Students will be asked to discuss the conditions for advance market commitments and to assess Stripe’s success to date as well as options for scaling the effort going forward. It appears to me that there is no original content whatsoever about the topic company, but a summary of Stripe using company sources. I have also found that the Head of Stripe Climate addressed the author's class around the same time as the case was published. The assumption made by Cunard appears to conflate Stripe with Frontier.
The authors are independent, but the content is not. Nor is the content about the company - it does not analyse the company nor contain any independent investigation/opinion/fact-checking about the company. This is a theoretical humanities essay about environmental change and the company really only appears as a passing reference.
Again, this is a mention in passing, using the company as an example within a broader conceptual argument. It has no independent in-depth content about the company.
As shown in the abstract I quoted, Frontier Climate was profiled in a 20-page case study, "an in-depth, detailed examination of a particular case (or cases) within a real-world context"). The case study was published by Columbia Business School, which is one of six Ivy League business schools and is part of the M7 group of business schools. This is a high quality reliable source that strongly establishes notability. The presence of some interview coverage does not render an entire analysis-filled case study non-independent. This source that discusses the case study is a good find. It is another source that contributes to notability by providing significant coverage and independent analysis of Frontier Climate.
The second source from Ca' Foscari University of Venice provides substantial analysis of Frontier Climate as demonstrated by the quote: "We trace how Frontier Climate and it founders, Big Tech corporations, Google, Meta, Shopify and global consultancy firm McKinsey, attempt to re-crack the sub/surface in Carbon Valley to ‘permanently store’ carbon in the deep basalt strata in the Kenyan Rift Valley through an extension of financial payment infrastructure and cloud regimes. ... The activities of companies like Stripe, Google, Meta, J.P. Morgan and McKinsey in forming Frontier Climate and investing in sites like the Great Carbon Valley exemplify a form of global takeover that focuses on naturalising the obliteration of life, in the quest of extreme experimentation for new horizons of accumulation, resource grabbing and profit."
This isn't about who published the material. Nobody has said that there's a problem with the publishing organisation, so I'm not sure why you feel that emphasising their credentials changes the content. The source might be labelled a “case study”, but that also doesn't change the content. NCORP doesn't treat case studies or any type of teaching materials, or business‑school exercises, any differently. As stated previously, the reference is about Stripe’s climate strategy, not the topic company, which only gets mentions as part of Stripe’s narrative. There is no independent investigation or no critical evaluation of the topic company, no fact‑checking of their claims. The second source which I provided and which you say is a "good source" in fact undermines your argument. It is based entirely on an interview with a Stripe exec and a founder of the topic company The first part provides independent analysis of Stripe, not the topic company which is only mentioned in passing as one of Stripe’s initiatives. The part about the topic company are quotes from a Stripe exec. This is not independent content, and this source fails ORGIND.
The second source claims to "trace" how a number of different companies exploit the Kenyan Rift Valley, but I'm really confused now, because I read that article and I cannot identify sufficient in-depth independent content about the company. I understand what the quote claims, but there's a difference between the claim and the reality of the content. This source is an essay about environmental politics and the topic company appears only as an example as part of the authors; critique of big tech companies carbon-removal narratives. There is no in-depth independent content about the topic company, there is no "investigation" of the topic company, there is no analysis of its operations, governance, or claims, there is no examination of the topic company at all, they are simply used as a rhetorical device to illustrate a wider political thesis. There is insufficient in-depth independent content, and it fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
If you can point to specific paragraphs in any of those sources which support the claims made by their desciptions, I'm happy to take another look. But from what I've managed to see, the actual content lacks what is required to meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)reply
User:Alaexis/AI_Source_Verification (source) - user script to check citations, either one-by-one or across an entire page. Can use a variety of models on the backend, including open-weight models.
Wikipedia Tree Browser (source) - jina-embeddings-v4 + gpt-oss-20b clustering for hierarchical visual browsing of Wikipedia topics (219 commits, most actively developed find)
CommonsVibe - Pinterest-style feed explorer for Wikimedia Commons categories
